Forcing elderly parents to live in fear, without care, on own property constitutes gross human rights violation: Haryana panel
'The psychological abuse, denial of basic necessities, and coercion to surrender property against their will is not only morally reprehensible but also legally indefensible,' Justice Lalit Batra, Chairperson of the commission, noted in an order released on Monday.
The commission asked the Panchkula police to give immediate protection to Arjan Dev Aggarwal, 82, and his wife Vijay Aggarwal, 72, who have approached it seeking urgent intervention against alleged harassment, neglect, and abandonment by their son and daughter-in-law.
The couple, residents of Panchkula Sector 9, alleged that their son and daughter-in-law used abusive language against them and that their children who reside in the same house do not care for and support them 'despite [their] advanced age and serious health ailments including multiple surgeries'.
The couple further alleged that their son and daughter-in-law pressured them to transfer ownership of their self-acquired residential property and taunted them to leave for an old age home.
The commission said in the order that a false case of domestic violence had also been filed to harass the elderly couple.
Referring to various legal provisions under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007, the commission said, 'Senior citizens unable to maintain themselves are entitled to claim maintenance from their adult children. The obligation of such children extends to ensuring that the parent may lead a normal life. Where the child or relative is in possession of the property or stands to inherit it, the duty to maintain becomes binding and proportional.'
The commission's order further stated, 'Where a senior citizen has transferred property subject to the condition of being cared for and such care is not provided, the transfer is deemed to have been made under coercion or undue influence and is liable to be declared void by the Senior Citizen Tribunal.'
'Whoever having the care or protection of a senior citizen leaves and abandons senior citizen with the intention to wholly abandoning them is punishable with imprisonment or fine,' the order read.
The commission recommended that the matter be urgently forwarded to the Panchkula deputy commissioner with the directions to provide the elderly couple with immediate protection through the police or other authorities, 'ensuring that they are not subject to further harassment or abuse'.
The commission also recommended that the deputy commissioner 'expedite the proceedings pending before the Senior Citizen Tribunal, Panchkula, and extend all necessary administrative support so that the complainants may obtain effective relief without delay'.
The commission also sought an action-taken report before the next date of hearing in the matter, September 23, 2025.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Print
33 minutes ago
- The Print
In a first, UNSC panel report mentions Lashkar front TRF, links it to Pahalgam attack
New Delhi has been providing the 1267 Sanctions Committee with detailed inputs of TRF and its linkages with the LeT since 2023. In 2024, on two occasions, India provided the MT with information regarding the activities of the terrorist outfits. This is the first time that TRF, a wing of the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), has been named in a United Nations (UN) document, despite hectic efforts by Pakistan to block any such move. The TRF masterminded the terrorist attack in Jammu and Kashmir's Pahalgam on 22 April that left 26 people dead, according to the government of India. New Delhi: In a significant diplomatic setback for Islamabad, Pakistan-based terrorist outfit The Resistance Front (TRF) has been named in the Monitoring Team (MT) report of the 1267 Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council released Wednesday. For India, the diplomatic significance lies in the fact that the MT reports are adopted by consensus by UNSC members. India is not a member of the international body, while Pakistan is currently a member and holds the rotating presidency. Islamabad's tenure as the rotating president of the UNSC ends on 31 July. 'On 22 April, five terrorists attacked a tourist spot in Pahalgam, in Jammu and Kashmir. Twenty-six civilians were killed. The attack was claimed that same day by The Resistance Front (TRF), who in parallel published a photograph of the attack site. The claim of responsibility was repeated the following day. On 26 April, however, TRF retracted their claim. There was no further communication from TRF, and no other group claimed responsibility,' the MT report said. Days after the terrorist attack in Pahalgam, the UNSC put out a statement condemning the terrorist attack, but did not name the TRF due to Islamabad's diplomatic efforts. However, only one member of the UNSC rejected the views of the MT in the report, claiming that the LeT was defunct. Two other members of the council agreed with the linkage of the outfit with the LeT. 'One Member State said the attack could not have happened without Lashkar-e-Tayyiba (LeT, QDe.118) support, and that there was a relationship between LeT and TRF. Another Member State said that the attack was carried out by TRF, who was synonymous with LeT. One Member State rejected these views and said LeT was defunct,' said the report. Pakistani Foreign Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Ishaq Daq claimed credit for keeping TRF out of the UNSC statement during a speech to the National Assembly in April. Pakistan has maintained that no such organisation exists and that the LeT is defunct within its borders. The inclusion of TRF in the MT report also acknowledges New Delhi's position that Pakistan has started creating proxy organisations using secular or modern names to maintain plausible deniability with regard to cross-border terrorism. Organisations like TRF or the People Against Fascist Front, a front for the Jaish-e-Mohammad, are seen as an attempt by Islamabad to give an indigenous appearance to its terrorist activities in Jammu and Kashmir. Despite Islamabad's diplomatic efforts, the US earlier this month designated TRF as a Foreign Terrorist Organisation and Specially Designated Global Terrorist, in a move seen as a major diplomatic victory for India. A designation by the US could impact access to foreign financing and prevent travel by group members. TRF twice claimed responsibility for the terrorist attack in Pahalgam, before withdrawing its claim on 26 April. On Monday, a joint operation codenamed 'Mahadev' by the Indian forces eliminated three terrorists—Suleiman, Afghan and Jibran—in the Valley. The three were behind the Pahalgam terrorist attack revealed Amit Shah, India's Minister for Home Affairs, during a speech to the Lok Sabha Tuesday. (Edited by Sugita Katyal) Also Read: As Op Sindoor targets its bases, a look at LeT's terror hierarchy, from Hafiz Saeed to Sajid Gul
News18
43 minutes ago
- News18
Tamil Film actor Powerstar held by Delhi Police over Rs 5-cr loan fraud
New Delhi, Jul 30 (PTI) The Economic Offences Wing (EOW) of Delhi Police has arrested Tamil film actor and self-styled doctor S Srinivasan, popularly known as Powerstar, in connection with a Rs 5-crore loan fraud case, an officer said on Wednesday. Srinivasan, who had been evading trial since 2018 and was declared a 'proclaimed offender' twice, was arrested from Chennai, the Delhi Police said in a statement. According to the statement, the actor allegedly posed as a financier and duped a Delhi-based company of Rs 5 crore promising to secure for it a Rs 1,000 crore loan. The money was later found to have been diverted for film production and personal use. 'The accused had been absconding for several years and was finally apprehended on July 27 from Vanagaram in Chennai. He has been remanded to judicial custody," Deputy Commissioner of Police (EOW) Ravi Kumar said. According to the complaint, a private firm was allegedly cheated by a group of persons including Henry Lalremsanga, Deepak Banga, Anil Varshney, and Ramanuja Muvvala in 2010. 'These people claimed to be expert consultants capable of securing high-value funding for hotel and corporate infrastructure projects," said the DCP. They introduced the complainant to S Srinivasan, who introduced himself as the proprietor of a trading company and claimed he could secure the company a Rs 1,000 crore loan. As part of the deal, the complainant paid Srinivasan Rs 5 crore, ostensibly to purchase adhesive stamps (0.5 per cent of loan amount), a standard fee in such transactions. However, no loan materialised, and a post-dated cheque of Rs 5 crore, issued as security by Srinivasan, bounced due to insufficient funds, police said. During investigation, the officer said, police found that on December 27, 2010, a sum of Rs 5 crore was transferred to the account of the trading company and later moved to accounts controlled by Srinivasan and his wife. Of this money, he withdrew Rs 50 lakh and transferred the remaining amount to a joint account, from which a fixed deposit of Rs 4 crore was created. Officials said Srinivasan failed to provide any documentation to prove that he had purchased adhesive stamps, which revealed his fraudulent intent. 'He was first arrested during the course of investigation but later released on interim bail in 2013 after assuring the court that he would repay Rs 10 crore in 15 days. However, he only deposited Rs 3.5 lakh and went underground," said the officer. The actor was first declared a proclaimed offender in April 2016. Though re-arrested in March 2017 and granted bail in June the same year, he again absconded, leading to his being declared a PO a second time in November 2018. In their pursuit for him, police zeroed in on his location at Golden Treasure Apartment in Vanagaram in Chennai, and arrested the 64-year-old on July 27. Popularly known as 'Powerstar" in the Tamil film industry, Srinivasan has been associated with films as a comedian, producer, singer. He even projected himself as a politician. He holds a diploma in acupressure from a Chinese university, acquired through distance learning. His passion for cinema led him to establish a trading company in Chennai, through which he allegedly lured businessmen with promises of large bank loans. Srinivasan has acted in several Tamil films. Police said he is also named in six other cases in Chennai for similar offences. PTI BM VN VN view comments First Published: July 30, 2025, 20:45 IST News agency-feeds Tamil Film actor Powerstar held by Delhi Police over Rs 5-cr loan fraud Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Karnataka high court imposes cost on petitioners for misuse of legal process
Bengaluru: The Karnataka high court imposed a Rs 10 lakh cost on six petitioners for concealing crucial facts and misusing legal procedures in a land acquisition case. "The petition, replete with suppression and bereft of bona fides, must meet its dismissal, not dismissal simpliciter, but with an exemplary cost. If the petition is now entertained on any score, it would amount to putting a premium on the litigative persistence of the petitioners and rewarding abuse of the process and tacit fraud played on this court. This forms the ninth petition on the same cause of action, seeking the very same prayer, differently worded, after the dismissal of eight rounds of litigation, all of which are suppressed in the subject petition," Justice M Nagaprasanna observed in his order. The case involves legal representatives of Venkata Bhovi and Hanumantha Bhovi, who received 2 acres and 20 guntas of land in Nagadevanahalli, Bengaluru, through an official memorandum dated Jan 9, 1979. The land was previously under their unauthorised occupation, and the deputy commissioner subsequently granted them ownership, recording their names in revenue records. You Can Also Check: Bengaluru AQI | Weather in Bengaluru | Bank Holidays in Bengaluru | Public Holidays in Bengaluru The land acquisition process began on July 31, 1986, with a preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, followed by a final notification on Jan 22, 1987. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 5 Books Warren Buffett Wants You To Read in 2025 Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo The compensation was fixed at Rs 65,000 per acre plus Rs 15,000 per acre in solatium and interest on June 6, 1987. The divisional commissioner deposited the award amount on Oct 9, 1987. Following Venkata's death, his legal heirs sought to remove the property from acquisition through various representations. They cited a draft notification under Section 48(1) of the Act from April 23, 1993. The petitioners approached the authorities on Jan 24, 2025, requesting a no-objection certificate, claiming their lands were excluded from acquisition based on a Sept 3, 1993 notification. Justice M Nagaprasanna noted that the petitioners' latest argument relied on a previously unmentioned 1993 notification. The court observed that this revelation came after eight rounds of litigation, characterising it as judicial manipulation rather than justice-seeking. "What I witness is not the pursuit of justice, but a game of judicial hide and seek, where one of the family members of the grantee seeks invocation of the writ jurisdiction, while the other member hides. Later, the other member seeks, and the former hides. Such cynical use of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India must be arrested in its tracks," Justice Nagaprasanna observed while dismissing the petition by Gangamma and five others to prevent abuse of judicial process and ensure finality in judicial decisions. —— BOX 3-decade saga The first round of litigation started in 1993. In 1994, the high court dismissed the petition. The second challenge was made in 1997 and the same was also dismissed. The third one was a suit filed in the civil court in 1993 which also met the same fate. In 2003, another petition was filed in the high court and was dismissed. In 2004, a second civil suit was filed and the same was dismissed as not maintainable. In 2007, the children of Vektata filed a petition on the same cause of action and it was dismissed on the grounds of delay. The order was challenged before a division bench in 2012 and the order of the single bench was affirmed in Nov 2022. In between, during the pendency of the writ appeal, a petition was filed in 2016 which was eighth in the series. However, when the petition was pending, the latest petition was filed on March 4, 2025. The petition filed in 2016 was withdrawn.
