LEGAL ISSUE: Enforcement of fundamental rights of elderly persons, including the right to live with dignity, shelter, and health, and effective implementation of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
CASE TYPE: Public Interest Litigation concerning the rights of senior citizens.
Case Name: Dr. Ashwani Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors.
Judgment Date: 13 December 2018
Date of the Judgment: 13 December 2018
Citation: The case does not have an official citation in the Indian Supreme Court (INSC) format.
Judges: Madan B. Lokur, J. and Deepak Gupta, J.
Can the State ensure a life of dignity for its elderly citizens? The Supreme Court of India, in this Public Interest Litigation, addressed the critical issue of the rights of elderly persons, emphasizing their fundamental right to live with dignity, adequate shelter, and proper healthcare. This judgment highlights the State’s obligation to protect and enforce these rights, particularly through the effective implementation of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (MWP Act). The bench comprised Justices Madan B. Lokur and Deepak Gupta, with Justice Lokur authoring the opinion.
Case Background
The petitioner, Dr. Ashwani Kumar, filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, seeking enforcement of the fundamental rights of elderly persons, particularly their right to live with dignity as guaranteed under Article 21. The petition raised concerns about inadequate pension schemes, lack of suitable shelter, insufficient geriatric care, and ineffective implementation of the MWP Act. The petitioner limited the relief sought to four key issues: pension, shelter, geriatric care, and effective implementation of the MWP Act. The Court was assisted by HelpAge India (through Mr. Mathew Cherian as Amicus Curiae) and Mr. Nikhil Dey (a social activist as an Intervener), along with the learned Additional Solicitor General representing the Union of India.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1951 | Elderly population in India was 1.98 crore. |
| 1995 | National Social Assistance Programme (NSAP) introduced on Independence Day. |
| 2001 | Elderly population in India was 7.6 crore. |
| 2007 | Latest revision in pension amount under Indira Gandhi National Old Age Pension Scheme. |
| 2007 | The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (MWP Act) came into force. |
| 2010-2011 | National Programme for Healthcare of the Elderly launched. |
| 2011 | Elderly population in India was 10.38 crore. |
| 2018 | Hon’ble President of India emphasized social justice on Constitution Day (26th November). |
| 30th November 2018 | Guidelines issued for a social audit of NSAP schemes. |
| 13 December 2018 | Date of the Supreme Court Judgment. |
| 2021 | Projected elderly population in India to be 14.3 crore. |
| 2026 | Projected elderly population in India to be 17.3 crore. |
Legal Framework
The judgment primarily revolves around the interpretation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to life. The Court emphasizes that this right includes the right to live with human dignity, encompassing basic necessities such as adequate nutrition, clothing, and shelter. The Court also refers to Article 41 of the Constitution, which directs the State to provide public assistance in cases of old age and other forms of undeserved want. The following legal provisions were discussed:
- Article 21 of the Constitution of India: “Protection of life and personal liberty – No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.” The Court interprets this to include the right to live with dignity.
- Article 39 of the Constitution of India: Mentions the health and strength of workers, men and women, and the tender age of children.
- Article 41 of the Constitution of India: Directs the State to provide public assistance in cases of unemployment, old age, sickness and disablement, and in other cases of undeserved want.
- Section 19 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (MWP Act): “Establishment of oldage homes – (1) The State Government may establish and maintain such number of oldage homes at accessible places, as it may deem necessary, in a phased manner, beginning with at least one in each district to accommodate in such homes a minimum of one hundred fifty senior citizens who are indigent.”
- Section 20 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (MWP Act): “Medical support for senior citizen – The State Government shall ensure that – (i) the Government hospitals or hospitals funded fully or partially by the Government shall provide beds for all senior citizens as far as possible; (ii) separate queues be arranged for senior citizens; (iii) facility for treatment of chronic, terminal and degenerative diseases is expanded for senior citizens; (iv) research activities for chronic elderly diseases and ageing is expanded; (v) There are earmarked facilities for geriatric patients in every district hospital duly headed by a medical officer with experience in geriatric care.”
- Section 21 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (MWP Act): Requires State Governments to give publicity to the provisions of the Act through all modes of public media.
- Section 30 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (MWP Act): Enables the Government of India to issue appropriate directions to the State Governments to carry out and execute the provisions of the MWP Act.
- Section 31 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (MWP Act): Requires the Central Government to conduct a review for the purposes of monitoring the progress in implementation of the MWP Act by the State Governments.
Arguments
The arguments presented before the Supreme Court can be summarized as follows:
Petitioner’s Arguments:
- The petitioner argued that the right to live with dignity, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution, includes the right to adequate financial resources, suitable shelter, and proper healthcare for elderly persons.
- The current pension schemes are inadequate, providing a mere pittance that does not allow for a dignified life. The petitioner suggested that the pension should be at least half the minimum wage.
- The petitioner emphasized that the State has a constitutional obligation to ensure that elderly persons have access to adequate shelter, including old age homes with proper facilities.
- The petitioner contended that medical facilities and geriatric care are not given due importance, and there is a lack of reliable information about the availability of beds and specialized centers.
- The petitioner highlighted that despite the existence of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (MWP Act), its provisions are not being effectively implemented, and the elderly are not aware of their rights.
- The petitioner relied on several judgments of the Supreme Court to argue that the right to life includes the right to live with dignity, referring to cases such as Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi [1981] 1 SCC 608, Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India [2011] 4 SCC 454, Common Cause v. Union of India [2018] 5 SCC 1, and K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India [2017] 10 SCC 1.
Amicus Curiae and Intervener’s Arguments:
- The Amicus Curiae and Intervener supported the petitioner’s arguments, emphasizing the need for a viable pension scheme and effective implementation of the MWP Act.
- They highlighted the poor condition of some old age homes and the lack of adequate facilities, including geriatric care.
Union of India’s Arguments:
- The Union of India acknowledged the importance of the issues raised but emphasized the economic constraints faced by the government.
- The Union of India referred to the National Social Assistance Programme (NSAP) and the Indira Gandhi National Old Age Pension Scheme, stating that these schemes are being implemented but require active support from State Governments.
- The Union of India also pointed to the Integrated Programme for Senior Citizens and the National Programme for Healthcare of the Elderly, highlighting the government’s efforts to provide shelter and healthcare to the elderly.
- The Union of India argued that linking pension to the index of inflation may not be appropriate since the pension provided is a welfare measure.
- The Union of India cited Unni Krishnan, J.P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1993] 1 SCC 645, to argue that the economic capacity of the State is a matter within its subjective satisfaction.
Submissions by Parties
| Main Submission | Party | Sub-Submission |
|---|---|---|
| Right to Dignified Life | Petitioner | Adequate financial resources are necessary for a dignified life. |
| Petitioner | Current pension schemes are inadequate. | |
| Amicus Curiae & Intervener | Supported the petitioner’s arguments for a viable pension scheme. | |
| Right to Shelter | Petitioner | State has a constitutional obligation to provide adequate shelter. |
| Petitioner | Old age homes must have proper facilities. | |
| Amicus Curiae & Intervener | Highlighted the poor condition of some old age homes. | |
| Right to Health | Petitioner | Medical facilities and geriatric care are not given due importance. |
| Petitioner | Lack of reliable information about the availability of beds and specialized centers. | |
| Union of India | National Programme for Healthcare of the Elderly is being implemented. | |
| Implementation of MWP Act | Petitioner | Provisions of the MWP Act are not being effectively implemented. |
| Petitioner | Elderly are not aware of their rights under the MWP Act. | |
| Union of India | Acknowledged the need for active support from State Governments. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court considered the following issues:
- Whether the fundamental rights of elderly persons, particularly their right to live with dignity, shelter, and health, are being adequately protected and enforced.
- Whether the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (MWP Act) is being effectively implemented by the Government of India and the State Governments.
- What measures should be taken to ensure that elderly persons are aware of their rights and have access to adequate pension, shelter, and healthcare facilities.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Protection of Fundamental Rights | Acknowledged the importance of the fundamental rights of the elderly. | The Court emphasized that the right to life under Article 21 includes the right to live with dignity, shelter, and health. |
| Implementation of MWP Act | Directed the Union and State Governments to ensure effective implementation. | The Court noted the need for better enforcement of the MWP Act and greater awareness among the elderly about their rights. |
| Measures for Elderly Welfare | Issued directions for a plan of action and review of existing schemes. | The Court ordered the Union Government to collect information, prepare a plan of action, and review pension schemes to make them more realistic. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | Legal Point | How it was used |
|---|---|---|---|
| Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi [1981] 1 SCC 608 | Supreme Court of India | Right to life includes the right to live with dignity, including basic necessities. | Cited to support the view that the right to life includes the right to live with dignity and basic necessities. |
| Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India [2011] 4 SCC 454 | Supreme Court of India | Right to life includes the right to live with dignity. | Cited to emphasize that the right to life includes the right to live with dignity. |
| Common Cause v. Union of India [2018] 5 SCC 1 | Supreme Court of India | Right to life includes the right to live with dignity. | Cited to reinforce that the right to life includes the right to live with dignity. |
| K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India [2017] 10 SCC 1 | Supreme Court of India | Human dignity is an essential part of fundamental rights. | Cited to highlight that human dignity is an essential part of the fundamental rights. |
| Unni Krishnan, J.P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1993] 1 SCC 645 | Supreme Court of India | Economic capacity of the State is a matter within its subjective satisfaction. | Cited to caution that the economic capacity of the State should be considered while directing the State to expend amounts. |
| Shantistar Builders v. Narayan Khimalal Totame [AIR 1990 SC 630] | Supreme Court of India | Right to food, clothing, and shelter as a guarantee of any civilised society. | Cited to emphasize that the right to shelter is a basic human right. |
| Chameli Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1996] 2 SCC 549 | Supreme Court of India | Right to shelter includes adequate living space and basic amenities. | Cited to explain the requirements of the right to shelter, including basic amenities. |
| Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan [1997] 11 SCC 121 | Supreme Court of India | Obligations under international law regarding the right to shelter. | Cited to reinforce the international obligations regarding the right to shelter. |
| Vincent Panikurlangara v. Union of India [1987] 2 SCC 165 | Supreme Court of India | Right to live with human dignity. | Cited to show that the right to live with dignity is an essential part of Article 21. |
| Consumer Education & Research Centre v. Union of India [1995] 3 SCC 42 | Supreme Court of India | Right to health as a fundamental right. | Cited to support the view that the right to health is a fundamental right. |
| Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. v. Employees State Insurance Corpn. [1996] 2 SCC 682 | Supreme Court of India | Right to health as a fundamental right. | Cited to support the view that the right to health is a fundamental right. |
| State of Punjab v. Mohinder Singh Chawla [1997] 2 SCC 83 | Supreme Court of India | Right to health as a fundamental right. | Cited to support the view that the right to health is a fundamental right. |
| Nagar Nigam v. AL Faheem Meat Exports (P) Ltd. [2006] 13 SCC 382 | Supreme Court of India | Right to health as a fundamental right. | Cited to support the view that the right to health is a fundamental right. |
| Occupational Health and Safety Association v. Union of India [2014] 3 SCC 547 | Supreme Court of India | Right to health as a fundamental right. | Cited to support the view that the right to health is a fundamental right. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | Party | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|---|
| Right to Dignified Life requires adequate financial resources | Petitioner | Accepted, emphasizing the need for a realistic pension scheme. |
| Current pension schemes are inadequate. | Petitioner | Agreed, directing the government to revisit pension amounts. |
| State has a constitutional obligation to provide adequate shelter. | Petitioner | Accepted, highlighting the need for more old age homes and proper facilities. |
| Medical facilities and geriatric care are not given due importance. | Petitioner | Agreed, directing the government to improve healthcare facilities for the elderly. |
| Provisions of the MWP Act are not being effectively implemented. | Petitioner | Accepted, directing the government to ensure effective implementation of the MWP Act. |
| Economic constraints should be considered. | Union of India | Acknowledged but emphasized the need to balance it with fundamental rights. |
| Schemes are being implemented but need active support from State Governments. | Union of India | Agreed, directing both the Union and State Governments to work in tandem. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- The Court relied on Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi [1981] 1 SCC 608* to establish that the right to life includes the right to live with dignity, which encompasses basic necessities.
- The Court cited Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India [2011] 4 SCC 454* and Common Cause v. Union of India [2018] 5 SCC 1* to further emphasize that the right to life includes the right to live with dignity.
- The Court referred to K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India [2017] 10 SCC 1* to highlight that human dignity is an essential part of the fundamental rights chapter.
- The Court acknowledged the caution given in Unni Krishnan, J.P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1993] 1 SCC 645*, stating that the economic capacity of the State should be considered, but emphasized that this should not be an excuse for not providing basic necessities.
- The Court referred to Shantistar Builders v. Narayan Khimalal Totame [AIR 1990 SC 630]* to recognize that the right to shelter is a basic human right.
- The Court cited Chameli Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1996] 2 SCC 549* to explain the requirements of the right to shelter, including basic amenities.
- The Court referred to Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan [1997] 11 SCC 121* to reinforce the international obligations regarding the right to shelter.
- The Court used Vincent Panikurlangara v. Union of India [1987] 2 SCC 165*, Consumer Education & Research Centre v. Union of India [1995] 3 SCC 42*, Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. v. Employees State Insurance Corpn. [1996] 2 SCC 682*, State of Punjab v. Mohinder Singh Chawla [1997] 2 SCC 83*, Nagar Nigam v. AL Faheem Meat Exports (P) Ltd. [2006] 13 SCC 382* and Occupational Health and Safety Association v. Union of India [2014] 3 SCC 547* to support the view that the right to health is a fundamental right.
What Weighed in the Mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to protect the fundamental rights of elderly persons, particularly their right to live with dignity. The Court emphasized the State’s obligation to ensure that elderly persons have access to adequate financial resources, suitable shelter, and proper healthcare. The Court was also concerned about the ineffective implementation of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (MWP Act) and the lack of awareness among the elderly about their rights.
The Court’s reasoning was driven by a strong sense of social justice and the need to address the vulnerabilities of the elderly population. The Court recognized that the elderly are often marginalized and require special care and attention. The Court was also mindful of the economic constraints faced by the government but emphasized that these constraints should not be an excuse for not providing basic necessities to the elderly.
The Court’s decision was also influenced by the need to ensure that the MWP Act is effectively implemented. The Court noted that despite the existence of the Act for more than a decade, its provisions are not being complied with in spirit. The Court emphasized the need for greater awareness among the elderly about their rights and the need for the government to take proactive steps to ensure that the provisions of the Act are implemented.
The Court’s decision was also influenced by the need to ensure that the existing schemes for the elderly are reviewed and updated. The Court noted that some of the schemes are comparatively dated and need to be overhauled to bring about convergence and avoid multiplicity. The Court also emphasized the need for the government to revisit the grant of pension to the elderly so that it is more realistic.
Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Protection of Fundamental Rights | 35% |
| Effective Implementation of MWP Act | 30% |
| Need for Realistic Pension Schemes | 20% |
| Improvement of Healthcare Facilities | 15% |
Fact:Law Ratio Analysis
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
Logical Reasoning
Judgment
The Supreme Court held that the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution includes the right to live with dignity, which encompasses basic necessities such as adequate nutrition, clothing, and shelter. The Court emphasized that the State has an obligation to ensure that elderly persons have access to these rights. The Court also held that the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (MWP Act) mandates the protection and enforcement of the rights of elderly persons, and the government must take proactive steps to ensure compliance with the Act.
The Court observed that the current pension schemes are inadequate and directed the government to revisit the grant of pension to the elderly so that it is more realistic. The Court also directed the government to improve healthcare facilities for the elderly and to ensure that the provisions of the MWP Act are effectively implemented. The Court issued the following directions:
- “The Union of India will obtain necessary information from all the State Governments and the Union Territories about the number of old age homes in each district of thecountry and the facilities available in these homes. The Union of India will also obtain information about the number of geriatric centers in each district and the facilities available there.”
- “The Union of India will, in consultation with the State Governments and the Union Territories, prepare a plan of action for creating awareness about the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.”
- “The Union of India will revisit the grant of pension to the elderly so that it is more realistic.”
- “The Union of India will also consider the feasibility of setting up a helpline for the elderly.”
- “The State Governments and the Union Territories will ensure that the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 are effectively implemented.”
Verbatim Quote from the Judgment:
Ratio Decidendi:
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution includes the right to live with dignity, which encompasses basic necessities such as adequate nutrition, clothing, and shelter. The State has an obligation to ensure that elderly persons have access to these rights. Further, the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (MWP Act) mandates the protection and enforcement of the rights of elderly persons, and the government must take proactive steps to ensure compliance with the Act.
Obiter Dicta:
The Court made several obiter dicta, including:
- The current pension schemes are inadequate and need to be revisited.
- The government should improve healthcare facilities for the elderly.
- The government should create awareness about the provisions of the MWP Act.
- The government should consider the feasibility of setting up a helpline for the elderly.
Impact
Legal Impact:
- Reinforcement of Fundamental Rights: The judgment reinforced the interpretation of Article 21 of the Constitution, emphasizing that the right to life includes the right to live with dignity, which encompasses basic necessities such as adequate nutrition, clothing, and shelter.
- Emphasis on State Obligation: It highlighted the State’s obligation to protect and enforce the rights of elderly persons, particularly through the effective implementation of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (MWP Act).
- Direction for Policy Review: The judgment directed the government to revisit pension schemes and improve healthcare facilities for the elderly, leading to a potential policy shift in how the elderly are treated.
- Authority for Future Cases: This judgment has become an important reference point for subsequent cases dealing with the rights of the elderly, providing a strong legal basis for their protection.
Societal Impact:
- Increased Awareness: The judgment has helped in raising awareness about the rights of the elderly and the need for their protection.
- Policy Changes: The directions issued by the Court have led to some policy changes, including efforts to improve pension schemes and healthcare facilities for the elderly.
- Empowerment of the Elderly: By emphasizing their rights, the judgment has empowered the elderly to seek legal recourse and demand better treatment from the government and society.
- Focus on Geriatric Care: The judgment has brought attention to the need for specialized geriatric care, leading to a greater focus on this area of healthcare.
- Social Audit: The judgment led to the issuance of guidelines for a social audit of the National Social Assistance Programme (NSAP) schemes, ensuring greater transparency and accountability.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Dr. Ashwani Kumar vs. Union of India (2018) is a landmark decision that has significantly impacted the legal landscape concerning the rights of elderly persons in India. The judgment reinforced the interpretation of Article 21 of the Constitution, emphasizing that the right to life includes the right to live with dignity, which encompasses basic necessities such as adequate nutrition, clothing, and shelter. It also highlighted the State’s obligation to protect and enforce these rights, particularly through the effective implementation of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (MWP Act).
The judgment has had a far-reaching impact, leading to increased awareness about the rights of the elderly, policy changes aimed at improving pension schemes and healthcare facilities, and a greater focus on geriatric care. It has also empowered the elderly to seek legal recourse and demand better treatment from the government and society. By directing the government to revisit pension schemes, improve healthcare facilities, and ensure the effective implementation of the MWP Act, the Supreme Court has taken a significant step towards ensuring that elderly persons in India can live with dignity and respect.
In conclusion, this case is a testament to the judiciary’s role in upholding fundamental rights and ensuring social justice for vulnerable populations, particularly the elderly. The judgment serves as a strong reminder of the State’s responsibility to care for its elderly citizens and to provide them with the necessary resources to live a life of dignity and well-being.