Article 41: Right to work, education and public assistance in certain cases: The State shall take effective measures within the framework of economic capacity and development to guarantee the right to work, education and public assistance in cases of unemployment, old age, sickness and disability, as well as in other cases of unmerited need. Art. 46: Promotion of the educational and economic interests of ….. and other weaker parties: The State pays particular attention to promoting the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of the population. and protects them from social injustice and all forms of exploitation. However, these provisions are contained in Chapter IV, i.e. the Policy Principles of the Constitution of India. The principles of the Directive referred to in Article 37 shall not be enforceable by any court. But political principles impose positive obligations on the state, that is, what it must do.

Political principles were declared fundamental to the governance of the country, and the State was obliged to apply them in legislation. However, the courts cannot enforce a principle of directives because it does not establish a justiciable right in favour of an individual. It is very regrettable that the State has not even adopted a single law directly affecting the elderly. If the elderly person has transferred his or her property by gift or otherwise, provided that the parent provides the elderly citizen with basic amenities and basic physical needs, and that parent refuses or fails to provide these physical amenities and needs, section 23 (1) provides that such transfer of ownership shall be annulled by the court. if the elder so wishes. This is a welcome provision because it protects naïve seniors from exploitation by parents who want to break their promise later. Finally, I would like to say that there is no argument against the idea of creating a safety net for the elderly. The fact is that any legislation providing for such a network should be implementable. In addition to the various loopholes discussed, the big question is whether parents would bring their children to court in the face of various social constraints. A better approach could be to design a social security system, including financial products such as pensions and reverse mortgages, that enable older persons to live in dignity. « In India, there are laws that protect the elderly and ensure their well-being. It is a criminal offence to leave an elderly person anywhere by a person who is receiving the care or protection of such an elderly person, and that person shall be liable to imprisonment for up to three months or a fine of five thousand rupees or both.

[22] An elderly citizen, including a parent, who is unable to support himself or herself from his or her own income or property is entitled to relief under this Act. Children/grandchildren are required to support their parents, either their father, mother or both. [12] Similarly, the parent of an older person is required to care for the older person. If those children or family members do not support their parents or elders, the parents or elders may apply to the court established under this Act for assistance in enforcing the application for support. These parents/elders can file an application with the court, claiming support and other reductions from their children or family members, if any. [13] Clearly, the bill, in its current form, will only meet the needs of parents and seniors from educated families, the propertied classes and urban areas. It cannot meet the needs of parents and elderly people who belong to the poorest strata of society or who come from the villages. You can find three generations living in the same village and sometimes even under the same roof! If the son is also destitute, how can he provide for his parents and grandparents? How would the Court decide such disputes? The son will be only too happy if he is put behind bars because he is guaranteed at least two square meals a day. The bill cleverly circumvents the constitutional directive (Article 41), which directs the state to provide public assistance to the elderly. The bill states that « the State Government may establish and maintain a number of retirement homes in accessible locations that it deems necessary, in a progressive manner, beginning with at least one in each district, to accommodate in such homes at least one hundred and fifty poor elderly persons. » Note the use of « may » instead of « shall » – there is no obligation for state governments to set them.

Even without this clause, it has never been prohibited to provide retirement homes. In addition, there is some question as to why a bill should specify details such as the minimum size of a retirement home. Such an application for maintenance may be made by the elderly person or one of his parents or, if that person is prevented from attending, by any other person or body approved by him. [14] The court may also take note of suo motu.