The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act was enacted in 2007. However, even after eight years, many provisions in the Act have not been implemented in the state. If the Act was implemented, 70 per cent of the problems of the elderly would have been solved.
It is the responsibility of the district collector to protect the life and property of senior citizens. If children or close relatives are not looking after them, seniors can approach a tribunal.
RDOs are in charge of tribunals. Today tribunals’ operations are in name only. One condition is that an application must be disposed of in three months.
The tribunal has the responsibility to provide interim maintenance to weaker seniors so that they can lead a life.
But the sad situation in the state is that many times the order comes only after the death of the petitioner.
In Palakkad district, action was taken on a complaint after the woman who gave it to the tribunal died. The order came after three months and 20 days.
In this case, the concerned officials’ explanation was that they were busy with election work.
The Act stipulates that seniors themselves can argue their cases before the tribunal. It states that the services of lawyers should not be used. This provision was included in the Act because parents without money would not be able to pay for the services of lawyers. It is the responsibility of the social justice department officer in each district to help seniors. Though they have the authority to provide legal assistance to the elderly and pursue the case for them, they are not doing it. It has been noticed that children use lawyers to prolong cases. This situation has come because district social justice department officers do not fulfil their responsibilities.
This is also an obstacle for seniors to get justice. The state’s social justice department, which is responsible for educating district officers regarding this, has not intervened in this matter efficiently.
Recommendations such as the police should collect the data of senior citizens within the limits of every police station every month, and a police officer should visit the elderly once in a month with a voluntary worker have not been followed.
If they are asked why such things are not implemented, the answer will be shortage of staff. Since this is a very important matter, police should give priority to the protection of the elderly.
The Act also stipulates arrangements for the safe travel of the elderly. One main complaint heard at sittings was that the elderly were facing difficulties because foot-boards of buses in the state were high.
Though regional transport authorities, headed by district collectors, can pass order in this regard, they are not doing it. Likewise, special queue in hospitals, geriatric wards and bed for all patients in a ward look good on paper only.
Though the Act stipulates that parents and senior citizens must be educated about their rights regularly through media, it has not been implemented. Even the recommendation that classes must be held to create awareness about the Act among state and central government employees and members of the judiciary has not been implemented.
(The writer is the special officer appointed by the government to give recommendations on forming a regulatory board for the welfare of parents and senior citizens and is a senior advocate at the high court)