It was a significant moment when the Supreme Court on Monday urged all the States and Union Territories to update on the status of old-age homes and facilities provided to the elderly, as a long-pending petition about senior citizens’ rights and welfare was being heard. A petition was initially lodged in 2016 by Dr Ashwani Kumar which discusses old people’s pensions, shelter, and need for medical care. The hearing has also been going on for many years now.
Dr Kumar made it known that the plea had not been heard for about six to seven years and informed that the Union government had only compiled details about 15 States and 4 Union Territories which was not quite a clear and recent overview of the issue before the court.
Subsequently, the Supreme Court requested the Attorney General to approach the States and Union Territories and collect all latest information about the old-age homes. The reports have been given three weeks to do the needful.
The significance of this matter exceeds mere statistics. An old-age home for those with no one to rely on means they have a secure dwelling, food, and medicine. They have support when needed.
Through the court petition, there is a call for establishing more old-age homes in every district with adequate pensions and best-suited medical and geriatric care that these vulnerable citizens are entitled to and depend upon when they no longer can fend for themselves and are dependent on others.
Despite this need, States are still waiting for clarification on their facilities to the elderly population.
What is happening on the ground?
How many of the old-age homes are fully functional?
Where are they located?
What kind of amenities are they offering and how many people are receiving pension and care for their medical needs?
A detailed report answering these pertinent questions is expected from the States. The Supreme Court also questioned NALSA if there was a scheme to safeguard the legal rights of senior citizens. If one didn’t exist, they were asked if one could be designed to guide and offer legal aid to the elderly people.
This plea of the elderly cannot be brushed under the carpet any longer. The fact that fresh statistics are being sought on this matter, after many years, clearly indicates that it is no longer merely about what the law states, but also whether these safeguards are indeed being offered to the ones that need it most. The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, which provisionally ensures the safety and health of seniors as well as old-age homes for impoverished aged people already exists.
However, the ground realities often fall short and a legally existing service does not always equate to one that functions and is readily accessible.
It can have a world of difference for a lonely elder without adequate support and care, and having a legal provision should be more than just an assurance when systems in place can fail them.
Now, the responsibility to furnish comprehensive details lies with the States. Their updated report is crucial for understanding the existence and shortcomings in support for the elderly. These figures may reflect the reality faced by an old person living alone, seeking timely assistance or medical aid, or awaiting financial aid. The Supreme Court now expects the States to come up with concrete answers, that would reveal if the elderly in India truly receive the dignity, security, and care that they are supposed to.
