The Karnataka high court stated on Wednesday that breastfeeding is an intrinsic constitutional right of a lactating mother, and that the infant's right must be integrated with the mother's right. It was dealing with a slew of applications filed by a toddler's biological mother and foster parents. Breastfeeding must be recognised as a lactating mother's intrinsic right.
Similarly, the right of a suckling newborn to be breastfed must be reconciled with the right of the mother. It may be argued that this is a case of concurrent rights; this crucial aspect of motherhood is protected under the umbrella of fundamental rights given by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. It's a shame that this lovely kid was unbreastfed for no apparent reason, as its lactating mother had no access to it until now. Such atrocities should never happen in a civilised society, Justice Krishna S Dixit wrote in his ruling.
While a Bengaluru woman sought custody of her rescued baby son, foster parents in Koppal sought court orders allowing them to keep the youngster. The couple had also contested the
Child Welfare Committee's notification to them. The child was born in a Bengaluru maternity home in May 2020, but was taken from the cradle by a psychiatrist, who subsequently allegedly handed it to the Koppal couple by claiming it was their surrogate child.
The couple's money had been seized by the psychiatrist. In May, police apprehended the abductor and tracked the youngster to the couple's home in Koppal.
The judge dismissed the foster mother's attorney's argument that his client should be allowed to keep custody of the child because of what Devaki Maa allegedly did to Yashoda Maa, according to the Bhagavata, a famed Hindu purana that preaches devotion to Lord Krishna. It's a little tough to swallow; no authentic text of the episode is supplied to prove there was any kind of conflict between these two ladies of grace from a bygone era, the judge observed. The judge dismissed the foster mother's argument that his client had no children, whereas the genetic mother has two, and thus custody should be allowed to continue.
Children are not property to be divided between their biological mother and a stranger based on their numerical abundance. At least in this context, the distributive justice principle, which aims to close the gap between the "haves" and "have nots," is inapplicable.
Meanwhile, the judge commented that, regardless of what her children do to her, a genetic mother treats all of her children as important parts of her body and spirit.