Public spaces in India are often described as “for everyone.” It sounds inclusive. It reads well in policy documents. But step into a railway station, a crowded bus stand, or a government office, and a simple question arises, does “everyone” truly include a mother with an infant?
For most women, the answer is still no. A basic, non-negotiable need - safe, clean, and private space for breastfeeding remains largely invisible in the design of public infrastructure. What should be routine is treated as exceptional. What should be accommodated is pushed into discomfort. This is not merely an infrastructural gap; it reflects a deeper institutional indifference.
Systemic Neglect
On 19 February 2025, the Supreme Court addressed this issue in Maatr Sparsh – An Initiative by Avyaan Foundation v. Union of India. The case arose from a public interest petition seeking the creation of breastfeeding rooms, childcare spaces, and creche facilities in public places. The demand was straightforward. The implications, however, were far-reaching.
The Court did not treat breastfeeding as a matter of convenience. It located it firmly within the framework of constitutional rights. Breastfeeding, the Court observed, is an integral part of a child's right to life under Article 21. Equally, a mother's dignity, privacy, and bodily autonomy are not optional considerations, they are protected constitutional values. In one stroke, the Court moved the conversation from “facility” to “right.”
Right vs Reality
At first glance, the judgment appears progressive. It recognises a long-ignored reality and affirms it in constitutional terms. But the real question is not what the Court said, it is what followed.
One year has passed since the judgment. Yet, on the ground, little has changed. Breastfeeding rooms remain largely absent in most public spaces. Advisory circulars have not translated into visible infrastructure. The gap between judicial recognition and administrative action remains as wide as ever. This prolonged inaction underscores a simple truth, without binding, enforceable directions, even well-intentioned judgments risk being reduced to symbolic gestures.
Directive Without Force
Instead of issuing strict, binding directions, the Court had largely relied on the Central Government's advisory dated 27 February 2024. This advisory recommends measures such as installing sanitary pad vending machines in public institutions, creating dedicated breastfeeding and childcare spaces, and ensuring creche facilities in establishments employing 50 or more women. It also calls for similar arrangements in bus stands, schools, universities, and other high-footfall locations. On paper, these suggestions are sensible. In practice, they have proven insufficient.
An advisory is not an order. It signals intent, but it does not impose obligation. In administrative functioning, this distinction is decisive. Advisories can be ignored without consequence. Binding directions particularly those backed by the Court's powers under Article 142, create accountability and compel compliance. The absence of such enforceable directions is the most visible limitation of the judgment. A constitutional right without an enforcement mechanism risks becoming a mere aspiration
Ground-Level Failure
This gap becomes sharper when one considers the realities of implementation. In metropolitan cities, some compliance may emerge over time. But beyond urban centres, the picture remains uncertain. At the district and taluka level, public buildings continue to struggle with basic amenities. Clean toilets are not guaranteed. Drinking water is inconsistent. Maintenance is often poor. In such an environment, breastfeeding rooms are unlikely to feature high on administrative priorities.
This is not a marginal issue. It is a matter of public health. Global estimates indicate that improved breastfeeding practices can prevent approximately 820,000 child deaths every year. The absence of enabling infrastructure is not a neutral omission, it carries real consequences.
At the same time, India's social and economic landscape is evolving. Women's participation in the workforce is rising. More women are travelling, working, and accessing public institutions. Public spaces are no longer male-dominated by default. Yet their design continues to reflect outdated assumptions.
A working mother navigating a bus stand or a government office should not have to choose between dignity and necessity. The lack of facilities forces precisely that choice. It quietly excludes women from spaces that are, in theory, meant for all.
Missing Accountability
This brings us to the central issue: accountability. If breastfeeding rooms are not created, who is responsible? Which authority must act? What timelines apply? What consequences follow non-compliance? At present, there are no clear answers. And that is precisely the problem.
Policies in India often follow a predictable pattern, they are announced with intent but implemented with hesitation. Without clearly defined responsibilities, measurable standards, and enforceable consequences, even progressive measures fail to translate into reality. The experience of the past year only reinforces this concern.
Social Conditioning
There is also a social dimension that cannot be ignored. Breastfeeding, despite being natural and essential, continues to be viewed with discomfort in public. This perception influences both behaviour and policy. If institutions treat the issue as peripheral, infrastructure will reflect that mindset.
Changing this requires more than physical space. It requires normalisation. Public messaging, institutional sensitivity, and cultural acceptance must move together. A breastfeeding room should not be seen as an exception, it should be standard public infrastructure.
Directive Given, Action Missing
The Supreme Court has taken an important first step. It has recognised a neglected issue and given it constitutional grounding. But recognition alone is not reform. The need now is clear: stricter, binding, and enforceable guidelines must replace advisory suggestions. Without this shift, the promise of the judgment will remain unfulfilled.
Public spaces cannot claim to be inclusive unless they are designed for all users in practice. Inclusion is not a matter of language; it is a matter of infrastructure. The Court has spoken. A year has passed. The law has pointed the way. The only question that remains is whether the administration is willing to act.
Author is an LLM Student. Views are personal.