Skip to main content

Right to breast feed

 Right to breast feed

It is the most recent right introduced to the Indian Constitution under Article 21. On September 29, 2021, Justice Krishna S Dixit of the Karnataka high court stated that a nursing woman has an innate right to nurse her kid.

The infant was taken from the biological mother and delivered to the foster mother in this habeas corpus case. The court noted that the youngster has to be breastfed or he would grow weak, and his nursing mother has a complete right to feed the children. The court also stated that genetic parents may provide greater care for a kid than a foster mother, and that the child need his biological parents since they have a soul bond and are treated as if they were a part of the same body. Foster mothers are unable to provide for their children in the same way that biological mothers can. In this example, the foster mother did not have a kid, but the biological mother already had children at home, therefore the biological mother already had experience raising children, treating them, educating them, and keeping them clean, but the foster mother lacked that expertise. 

The youngster is also unable to live with strangers, according to the court. Articles 25 (2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and 24 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights affirm the child's right to protection as a minor, as well as a family's, society's, and government's responsibility to safeguard them and their rights. It was very bad and careless that the child was not breastfed; it is an age when the child cannot consume anything other than mother's milk, and the child was not getting it. This was very dangerous for the child; it could have resulted in death, and the child constantly cries when he is not being breastfed.

So, the child was returned to the biological mother because she needs to feed the child and the child needs the mother's milk, biological parents can better raise the child than foster parents, and no one has the right to steal children, and the foster mother had no experience raising children and was unable to breastfeed the child. As a result, the infant has lost a significant amount of energy, which might make the youngster weak and cause major difficulties. That the youngster endured as a result of the foster mother's foolishness was extremely wrong.

And, as we all know, a new born infant can only eat and drink mother's milk, thus it is critical for the kid's immunity, and a nursing mother has the right to feed her child at any time and in any location; otherwise, it will be regarded offensive.

The state's responsibility to ensure that mothers are properly educated should be considered as part of a larger commitment to provide social conditions that support good child feeding habits. This means that the state should not force women to feed their children in a certain way; instead, the state should ensure that mothers are supported and equipped to make healthy feeding decisions.


As a result, children should be considered to have the right to be nursed, not in the sense that the mother is required to do so, but in the sense that no one may interfere with the mother's right to do so. Breastfeeding should be regarded as a right that both the mother and the child share.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree