Categories
India News Karnataka

Breastfeeding is fundamental right, says K’taka HC

The mother pleaded with the court that her baby should be handed over to her from the couple who are looking after the baby presently…reports Asian Lite News.

The Karnataka High Court has observed that breastfeeding is an inalienable right of a mother and the Constitution under Article 21 guarantees this fundamental right. The right of the infant needs to be assimilated with that of its mother, the court has underlined.

The high court bench headed by Justice Krishna S. Dixit gave the order on Wednesday while hearing a case of habeas corpus petition filed by a woman from Bengaluru, whose baby was stolen from the hospital.

The mother pleaded with the court that her baby should be handed over to her from the couple who are looking after the baby presently.

A psychiatrist allegedly had stolen the newborn and given it away to the couple from Koppal in May 2020.

The bench has directed the authorities to hand over the baby from the couple to the biological mother.

The bench observed that it is unfortunate that newborn babies remained without being breastfed, “in a civilized society such things should not occur. It is to be recognized that breastfeeding is the inseparable right of a mother”, the bench said.

The counsel appearing for the foster mother contended that the biological mother already has two kids whereas the foster mother had none and she has nursed the baby with all the love and affection.

However, the court rejected the demand of the counsel that the baby should be handed over to the custody of the foster mother. The bench has underlined that the court cannot recognize the rights of strangers as opposed to biological parents as far as an infant is concerned.

The court also set aside the comparison of the “Devaki Mata (the mother of Lord Krishna) and Yashoda Mata (Lord Krishna’s foster mother). “Children are not chattel. The distributive justice intends to bridge the gap does not apply in this case,” the court underlined as it made it clear that the right to breastfeed one’s child can neither be taken away from or given away by the possessor.

Convinced of the biological mother’s rights, the foster mother from Koppal has handed over the baby to her. The biological mother has agreed to the visit by the foster mother whenever she desires.

Justice Dixit appreciating the kind gestures from both mothers belonging to different religions said rarely he has come across such incidents. The court also observed that there will be no action against the foster parents in connection with the kidnapping of the child.

The newborn child was allegedly stolen from a maternity home in Bengaluru. The accused gave it to a couple from Koppal for money claiming that the child was born out of surrogacy.

However, the police cracked the case and arrested the accused psychiatrist and tracked the child to Koppal. The court disposed of the petitions filed by both biological mother and foster mother.

ALSO READ-Rights only for a few, not all: US Supreme Court

READ MORE-Ball in China’s court on making COP26 a success’

Categories
-Top News India News

Right to shelter doesn’t mean govt housing for unlimited period: SC

The bench said the right of shelter to the displaced person is satisfied when accommodation had been provided in transit accommodation….reports Asian Lite News

The Supreme Court has held that the fundamental right to shelter cannot be construed as a right to government accommodation for retired government employees.

A bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and A.S. Bopanna noted the right to shelter is a fundamental right, that may not be disputed, but such a right of shelter is granted to millions of Indians who do not have shelter.

“A section of society, more so retired government employees, who had earned pension, drawn retirement benefits, cannot be said to be in such condition, where the government should provide government accommodation for an unlimited period,” it ruled.

The bench said the right of shelter to the displaced person is satisfied when accommodation had been provided in transit accommodation. “The direction to allow a retired government servant to retain government accommodation for an indefinite period, to say the least, is a distribution of state largesse without any policy of the state. Such right of shelter does not and cannot extend to provide a government accommodation,” it held.

It was argued that the right to shelter is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. Counsel for the respondent cited Delhi High Court judgment, where the Centre was directed to provide alternative accommodation to 24 petitioners, including a former Director General of Border Security Force, and their families subject to payment of a normal license fee.

The top court observed that judges of any forum shall vacate the official residence within a period of one month from the date of superannuation/retirement. However, after recording sufficient reason(s), the time may be extended by another one month, it added.

The bench further observed that compassion could be shown for accommodating the displaced persons for one or two months. “But to allow them to retain the government accommodation already allotted or to allot an alternative accommodation, that too with a nominal licence fee, defeats the very purpose of the government accommodation which is meant for serving officers,” it added.

The bench observed that a section of the migrants cannot be treated as preferential citizens to give them the right to shelter at the cost of millions of other citizens who do not have a roof over their heads. “Such right of shelter does not and cannot extend to provide a government accommodation,” it added.

The top court judgment came on an appeal filed by Centre against an order passed by a division bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which allowed a retired employee of the Intelligence Bureau, to retain his government accommodation at a nominal fee till the prevailing circumstances in his native state, J&K, improved, and he was able to return. The top court set aside the high court judgment but allowed the respondent to vacate the government premises on or before October 31.

ALSO READ: Quad officials discuss cooperation on supply chain, critical technologies

ALSO READ: SC pulls up Centre for failing to give details of cases against MPs, MLAs