SC invoked Articles 21 & 41 for dignity & protection of vulnerable Senior Citizen
Judgment of the Supreme Court of India in Diary No.22768 of 2024 of Ravi Kant Gupta Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others
The appellant is the owner of the house; respondent no.4 is the son of the appellant and respondent no.5 is the wife of the appellant.
The mother, aged 81 years age, of the appellant was forced to leave the premises and to reside at an old age facility.
On 5.6.2022, the appellant filed application under the Senior Citizens Act 2007, for eviction of son. However, the High Court held that there is no power to order eviction.
The measure of a civilized society is often reflected in the dignity,
respect and security it affords to its elderly. Across cultures,
religions, and civilizations, senior citizens have been regarded not
merely as dependents requiring care, but as repositories of wisdom,
experience, and collective memory whose guidance enriches families
and society alike. Article 21 of the Constitution as interpreted by
this Court and Article 41 of the Constitution envisage a social order
that protects the vulnerable and enables every individual to live
with dignity throughout the course of life. This commitment finds
statutory expression in the Act, enacted to ensure that advancing
age does not become synonymous with neglect, insecurity, or
indignity. In light of the aforesaid constitutional mandate, the
Parliament has enacted the Act. The provisions of the Act
incorporate the values deeply rooted in our country’s civilizational
ethos which revere the mother and the father as divine. The Act is
3
intended to provide a speedy remedy for the senior citizen.
10. Under Section 7 of the Act, the tribunals have been constituted
which have power under Section 8 of the Act to conduct an inquiry
following a summary procedure with powers of a Civil Court.
Section 27 of the Act explicitly bars the jurisdiction of the Civil
Courts. It is a well-settled legal proposition that where an Act
confers a jurisdiction, it impliedly also grants the power of doing all
such acts, or employing such means, as are essentially necessary to
its execution3. On this analogy, we have no hesitation in holding
that the tribunal under the Act has power to order eviction in order
to ensure the maintenance or protection of a senior citizen.
11. It is noteworthy that a three-Judge Bench of this Court4, while
dealing with claims arising out of the provisions of the Act and the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 held that
the tribunal under the Act may have the authority to order an
eviction if it is necessary and expedient to ensure the maintenance
and protection of a senior citizen or a parent. It was further held
that eviction would be an incident of enforcement of right to
maintenance and protection. Taking into account the aforesaid
observations, a two-Judge Bench of this Court5, held that tribunal
3 Income Tax Officer Cannanore v. M.K. Mohammed Kunhi, 1968 SCC OnLine SC 71
4 S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District & Ors., (2021) 15 SCC 730
5 Samtola Devi v. State of U.P. & Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine
under the Act may order eviction if it is necessary and expedient to
ensure the protection of senior citizens. Another two-Judge Bench
of this Court6 reiterated the same view.
