The writ petition aimed to highlight the vulnerability of senior citizens, arguing that they face unique challenges, including health issues, societal changes, financial instability, and dependence. It referred to senior citizens as a “vulnerable class” that deserves special attention under Article 21 of the Constitution, which ensures the right to a dignified life.
NEW DELHI: On January 20, 2025, the Supreme Court of India refused to entertain a writ petition that sought the establishment of a dedicated Ministry for senior citizens. The petition, filed by Advocate G Priyadharshi, a lawyer and social worker, was withdrawn after the Court allowed the petitioner to make a representation to the relevant government ministries instead.
Background
The writ petition aimed to highlight the vulnerability of senior citizens, arguing that they face unique challenges, including health issues, societal changes, financial instability, and dependence. It referred to senior citizens as a “vulnerable class” that deserves special attention under Article 21 of the Constitution, which ensures the right to a dignified life.
The petition also cited the India Ageing Report 2023, which mentioned that the population of people aged 60 years and above in India was 149 million (14.9 crore) in 2022, making up about 10.5% of the country’s total population. It further stated that by 2050, the number of senior citizens would increase dramatically to 347 million (34.7 crore), comprising 20.8% of the population.
The petition emphasized the urgent need for a dedicated Ministry or Department to address the growing concerns related to senior citizens. This Ministry, according to the petition, would be responsible for formulating policies, schemes, providing financial assistance, managing healthcare needs, and ensuring pensions for the elderly. The petition warned that without a specific body to handle these issues, the rise in the aging population could lead to serious consequences for the country’s health, economy, and social structure.
The writ petition was heard by a bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra. Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan represented the petitioner in the Court. At the beginning of the hearing, Justice Narasimha interrupted Sankaranarayanan’s arguments and made it clear that the Court was not inclined to entertain the petition.
ALSO READ: Lok Sabha Elections | Supreme Court Rejects Senior Citizen’s Plea for Postal Ballot
He said, “You should read your writ. It cannot be done.”
Justice Narasimha further explained that the Court was not in a position to create a new Ministry.
He stated, “It is understandable had the petitioner come to the Court with a pray seeking specific directions against an ailment or a problem, but the Court cannot be asked to create a Ministry.”
Despite this, the Court allowed Sankaranarayanan to present brief arguments in favor of the petition. However, Justice Narasimha continued to question the nature of the prayer in the writ petition and expressed concerns over its feasibility.
Before dismissing the petition, Justice Narasimha made an insightful comment on the broader societal context.
He remarked, “We heard that a Chief Minister of one of the States giving incentives for more children. It is a complete circle. Earlier, it was de-incentive for having more children in contesting Panchayat elections and all. Now, it is the other way round. Now, we need to relook and keep it par with younger generation.”
In his statement, Justice Narasimha highlighted the need to balance the welfare of both senior citizens and the younger population, as the country’s demographics are shifting. His comment reflected the necessity of rethinking policies to ensure the well-being of all age groups in a rapidly changing society.
The writ petition stressed that senior citizens face a wide range of issues that are not adequately addressed by the existing government structures. It pointed out that the Department of Women and Child Development, which was upgraded to a full-fledged Ministry in 2006, was set up specifically to address the challenges faced by women and children. The petitioner argued that senior citizens, similarly, require dedicated attention and resources from a specialized Ministry.
The petition also noted that the current approach under the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, which deals with issues related to senior citizens in conjunction with other vulnerable groups like victims of alcoholism, transgender persons, and beggars, is insufficient. The petitioner argued that such a broad categorization fails to address the specific needs of senior citizens, who require tailored policies and support systems.
Case Title: G PRIYADHARSHNI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.,W.P.(C) No. 21/2025
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
