The Supreme Court has directed all state governments to submit fresh status reports detailing the establishment of old-age homes and the facilities available to senior citizens, setting a four-week deadline for compliance.
A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana ordered Attorney General R Venkataramani to communicate with the Advocates General of all states to collect the updated information. The four-week window will commence from the date the Advocates General receive the communication.
Bench Prioritises Fact-Finding Over Transfer
The directive came during the resumed hearing of a public interest litigation initiated in 2016 by Dr Ashwani Kumar. While the Central government proposed transferring the matter to individual high courts, the Supreme Court decided to first examine the ground reality of existing elder-care infrastructure across the country.
Addressing the institutional division of labour, Chief Justice Kant noted that while the top court could formulate overarching principles, the high courts could subsequently be assigned to ensure their effective execution.
Plea Highlights Years Of Inaction
Arguing his case in person, Kumar requested the bench to hear the long-pending petition, submitting that the continuing mandamus had remained unaddressed for several years despite concerning the fundamental rights and welfare of crores of elderly citizens.
Kumar’s petition seeks judicial directions for the establishment of old-age homes in every district, the provision of adequate pensions, and the establishment of dedicated geriatric care for senior citizens.
Decade-Long Legal Battle For Institutional Safeguards
The litigation has been pending before the apex court since 2016, focusing on enforcing statutory and constitutional protections for older persons. In an initial order issued on April 8, 2016, the court had issued notice to the Union government and sought the institutional assistance of both HelpAge India and the National Legal Services Authority to formulate national welfare measures.
At the time, the court permitted Kumar to argue in person and enlisted HelpAge India to assist the bench in developing acceptable schemes, citing the organisation’s background in elderly care. The bench also directed the member-secretary of NALSA to place on record any existing schemes designed to protect senior citizens’ rights. In the absence of an active framework, NALSA was asked to indicate whether it could draft a dedicated scheme offering legal aid to older persons under prevailing statutes, alongside details of measures that NALSA and State Legal Services Authorities could implement to protect their statutory and constitutional rights.
