The Allahabad High Court, in a significant pronouncement, has declared that the neglect, cruelty, or abandonment of elderly parents constitutes a violation of their fundamental right to life with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution. A Division Bench comprising Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Prashant Kumar, made these observations while directing the State of Uttar Pradesh to release a compensation amount of Rs. 21,17,758/- to a 75-year-old father, whose sons had disputed his sole claim to the funds.
The Court disposed of a writ petition filed by the father, Ram Dular Gupta, after his sons tendered an unconditional apology for their conduct. However, the bench issued a stern warning that it would not hesitate to pass stringent orders if the sons caused any future trouble.
Background of the Case
The matter came before the High Court through a writ petition filed by Ram Dular Gupta, seeking the release of compensation for his land and structure that had been acquired. The compensation had been quantified at Rs. 21,17,758/- by a payment notice dated January 16, 2025.
The disbursal of the amount was stalled due to a dispute raised by the petitioner’s two sons, Vijay Kumar Gupta and Sanjay Gupta. They filed an impleadment application claiming that they had also contributed to the construction of the superstructure on the acquired land and were therefore entitled to a share of the compensation.
Arguments of the Parties
The petitioner, an infirm senior citizen aged over 75, appeared before the Court and narrated his plight. His counsel argued that the superstructure was built solely from the petitioner’s own resources and that his sons, who are settled in Surat and Mumbai, had not contributed a “single penny.”
The petitioner alleged that once the compensation was fixed, his relationship with his sons became strained. He submitted that they “not only they quarrelled with their father, but made all sort of atrocities against the petitioner,” compelling him to lodge an FIR. During the hearing, the petitioner narrated with “deep pain and distress” how his sons subjected him to physical and emotional trauma, alleging they had even physically bitten him and displayed the injuries sustained.
Despite the alleged mistreatment, the petitioner, described by the court as having “a father’s heart full of forgiveness,” expressed his intention to voluntarily share a portion of the compensation with his sons.
The counsel for the sons initially argued their entitlement to the compensation. However, during the proceedings, they stated their clients were “ready and willing to apologize to their father” and sought to settle the matter amicably. Subsequently, the sons tendered an unconditional apology before the Court, assuring that no such unfortunate conduct would occur in the future. Their counsel reiterated that they would cause no further trouble and would willingly accept whatever portion of the compensation their father chose to bestow upon them.
The Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State confirmed the total compensation amount and stated the State had no objection to releasing the entire sum to the petitioner, who is the “undisputed owner of the acquired property.”
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The High Court expressed deep anguish over the circumstances of the case, noting that the “primary impediment in the disbursal of compensation is the bitter and unfortunate conflict between the petitioner and his sons.”
The bench made powerful observations on the duties of children towards their parents, stating, “There exists no greater societal failure, no deeper moral bankruptcy, than when a civilised society turns away from the silent suffering of its elders.” The Court added, “But to be repaid in the winter of their lives with cruelty, neglect, or abandonment is not only a moral disgrace but also a legal violation.”
Emphasizing the legal and moral obligations, the judgment reads, “It is both a sacred moral duty and a statutory obligation for children to protect the dignity, well-being, and care of their ageing parents.”
The Court firmly established a constitutional protection for the elderly, asserting: “The Court firmly asserts that neglect, cruelty, or abandonment of elderly parents is a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the right to life with dignity. A home that has turned hostile for an ageing parent is no longer a sanctuary; it is a site of injustice.”
The bench also cited the Supreme Court’s judgment in Ashwani Kumar vs. Union of India and Others (2016), which highlighted the importance of social justice and recognized that the rights of elderly persons, though not explicitly detailed in the Constitution, are protected under Article 21 as interpreted by the Apex Court.
Final Decision
In light of the undertakings given by the sons and the petitioner’s forgiving stance, the High Court directed that the compensation amount of Rs. 21,17,758/- be released in favour of the petitioner, Ram Dular Gupta, at the earliest.
While disposing of the writ petition, the Court made it clear that its order was conditional on the sons’ future conduct. It granted liberty to the petitioner’s counsel to file a recall application “should the sons… cause any annoyance or interference in the future,” warning that the “Court shall not hesitate to pass appropriate and stringent orders.”
