New Delhi, Sept 7: The Supreme Court on Monday directed all states to submit updated status reports on the establishment of old-age homes and the facilities being provided to senior citizens across the country.
A bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana was hearing a long-pending public interest litigation (PIL) filed in 2016 seeking effective implementation of measures for the welfare and protection of elderly persons.
The petition, filed by Dr Ashwani Kumar, seeks directions for the establishment of old-age homes in every district, adequate pension benefits and access to geriatric healthcare for senior citizens.
Appearing in person, Kumar urged the bench to take up the matter, pointing out that the continuing mandamus in the case had remained pending for several years despite its implications for the rights and welfare of millions of elderly persons.
The Chief Justice observed that while the Supreme Court could lay down broad principles, the respective high courts could be entrusted with ensuring their implementation.
The Centre suggested transferring the matter to the concerned high courts. The bench, however, decided to first obtain fresh information from all states on the existing infrastructure and facilities available for senior citizens.
“Let a communication be sent from Attorney General R Venkataramani to the Advocates General of all the States to submit a latest status report with respect to the establishment of old-age homes and the requisite facilities being provided therein,” the bench said.
The states have been directed to submit their reports within four weeks of receiving the communication from their respective Advocates General.
The PIL has been pending before the apex court since 2016 and deals with the implementation of statutory and constitutional safeguards for elderly persons.
In an order dated April 8, 2016, the Supreme Court had issued notice to the Centre and sought assistance from the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) and HelpAge India in framing measures for protecting the rights and welfare of elderly persons.
The court had allowed Kumar to appear and argue the matter in person and agreed to associate HelpAge India with the proceedings, recognising its work for the welfare and protection of elderly and infirm persons.
HelpAge India was asked to assist the court in developing an acceptable scheme or solution to address the concerns of elderly persons raised in the petition.
The court had also sought information from NALSA on whether any scheme had been formulated for protecting the rights of senior citizens. In case such a scheme existed, NALSA was directed to place it before the court.
If no such scheme was in place, the authority was asked to indicate whether it could formulate one to provide legal assistance and safeguard the legal rights of senior citizens under existing laws.
The bench had further sought details of measures that could be undertaken by NALSA and State Legal Services Authorities to help elderly persons protect their fundamental, statutory and legal rights.
