Haryana rights panel asks Gurugram district administration to check on ‘neglected' elderly couple
Acting on a complaint submitted by residents and representatives of Ridgewood Estate Condominium Association, the commission has issued directions to the Gurugram district administration and health authorities to conduct a medical, psychological, and social assessment of the elderly couple.
The complaint alleges that the senior citizens were left in a state of grave neglect, relying solely on two female attendants, without proper medical supervision.
The elderly man is often heard crying out in pain, causing severe emotional trauma not just to his wife but also to other senior residents in the vicinity.
Despite repeated appeals to the son and local authorities, no effective action was taken, prompting the intervention of the commission.
HHRC chairperson Justice Lalit Batra (retd) expressed concern over the prolonged mental and physical suffering endured by the couple, calling it a blatant violation of Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the fundamental right to live with dignity.
He emphasized that such situations are not "private family matters", but public human rights concerns, especially when society and the state fail in their shared responsibility to protect vulnerable citizens.
Justice Batra highlighted provisions under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, particularly Section 20, which obligates the state to provide adequate healthcare services to senior citizens, including reserved hospital beds, separate queues, and subsidised treatment.
If intentional abandonment is established, the commission noted, criminal liability under Section 24 of the 2007 law may be invoked against the responsible party.
The commission also directed the deputy commissioner, Gurugram, to constitute a multi-disciplinary medical and welfare committee, comprising the commissioner of police, local sub-divisional magistrate, civil surgeon, and the district social welfare officer (also designated as maintenance officer under Section 20 of the 2007 law). This team is instructed to visit the residence and conduct a comprehensive assessment of the couple's physical, emotional, and social condition, said the commission, which has sought a status report and long-term action plan for the couple's treatment, care, and rehabilitation before the next hearing on July 3.
MSID:: 121536856 413 |
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
20 hours ago
- New Indian Express
Detailed report sought on temple demolition in Hyderabad's Banjara Hills
HYDERABAD: The Telangana High Court has directed the state government to provide complete details on the demolition of the Peddamma Temple in Banjara Hills and ensure the safe preservation of the Peddamma Thalli idol until further orders. Justice Vijaysen Reddy issued notices to the Hyderabad District Collector and local Tahsildar, adjourning the matter to August 18. The court was hearing a lunch-motion petition filed by Palle Vinod Kumar Reddy of Himayatnagar, who alleged that the July 24 demolition violated Articles 14, 21, 25 and 26 of the Constitution. The petitioner claimed that officials had razed the temple and removed the idol without prior notice, consultation with devotees, or adherence to religious customs, and sought reinstallation of the idol under Endowments Department supervision, rebuilding of the temple at government expense, and legal action against the responsible officials. Counsel for the petitioner alleged the demolition was carried out at 3 am to avoid public resistance, calling it an affront to devotees' sentiments. The government's counsel said the land was government property and the demolition was to prevent encroachment. Justice Vijaysen Reddy directed that the idol be kept safe until the next hearing.
News18
a day ago
- News18
SC Quashes Criminal Case After Divorce, Says Law Not To Be Used For Harassment
The court observed that in appropriate cases, the power to quash such proceedings is essential to uphold fairness and bring finality to personal disputes that have run their course The Supreme Court, on August 12, held that where a matrimonial relationship has ended in divorce and both parties have settled into their respective lives, criminal prosecution arising from that past relationship should not be allowed to continue as a form of harassment. A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and KV Vishwanathan observed that in appropriate cases, the power to quash such proceedings is essential to uphold fairness and bring finality to personal disputes that have run their course. The court was hearing an appeal filed by Navneesh Aggarwal and his parents against the Punjab and Haryana High Court's order dated August 1, 2024, which had declined to quash an FIR lodged under Sections 323, 406, 498-A, and 506 of the IPC by his former wife. The wife had raised no objection to the quashing, and both parties had ended their relationship through divorce by mutual consent, withdrawing all pending cases. The bench said that within the framework of inherent powers, a High Court may quash a criminal proceeding, complaint, or FIR if it is satisfied that, in light of such a settlement, there is little likelihood of conviction and that continuing the proceedings would result in injustice. The court stressed the need to apply the law in a way that addresses genuine grievances while preventing misuse. The judges noted that once the marital relationship has ended in divorce and the parties have moved on, continuing criminal proceedings against family members, particularly in the absence of specific and proximate allegations, serves no legitimate purpose. Such continuation, they said, only prolongs bitterness and burdens the criminal justice system with disputes that are no longer active. In this case, neither party was interested in pursuing criminal proceedings. The bench invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to advance complete justice, quashing the chargesheet and FIR registered at Police Station Radaur, District Yamuna Nagar, Haryana, along with all other criminal proceedings arising from them. The court referred to Dara Lakshmi Narayana v State of Telangana (2025), which held that criminal law is not to be used as a tool of harassment and that judicial scrutiny must guard against such misuse. It also cited Mala Kar v State of Uttarakhand (March 19, 2024) and Arun Jain v State of NCT of Delhi (April 1, 2024), in which it had exercised powers under Article 142 to quash criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial disputes once the parties had divorced, holding that continuation of prosecution in such circumstances amounted to an abuse of process. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's decision, noting that the former wife no longer intended to prosecute the case. It found that continuing the proceedings would only result in harassment to the appellants, given the facts of the matter, and that no useful purpose would be served by taking the case to its conclusion. The marriage between the parties was solemnised on March 6, 2018. About ten months later, the wife left the matrimonial home with her daughter from an earlier marriage. Multiple cases were filed thereafter, including the present FIR. A decree of divorce by mutual consent was granted by the Family Court on January 19, 2024, and all other pending proceedings initiated by the wife were withdrawn. When the appellants sought quashing of the FIR before the High Court, their plea was dismissed on the ground that certain allegations relating to the victimisation of the child had been sufficiently substantiated. The Supreme Court, however, found no justification for continuing the criminal proceedings in view of the mutual settlement, divorce, and the wife's lack of interest in pursuing the matter. tags : divorce marriage supreme court view comments Location : New Delhi, India, India First Published: August 15, 2025, 05:17 IST News india SC Quashes Criminal Case After Divorce, Says Law Not To Be Used For Harassment 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
a day ago
- Time of India
‘Crime does not fade even after death'
SLUG: 1989 CUSTODIAL DEATH CASE Ahmedabad: In a significant judgment, the Gujarat high court on Thursday ordered the recovery of a penalty amount from the estate of a deceased cop convicted in a custodial death case, observing that "the crime does not fade even after death. " The case pertained to the custodial death of Kanudo alias Bhoplo at Savarkundla police station in Amreli district in October 1989. Several policemen were convicted in 2000 for the offence. You Can Also Check: Ahmedabad AQI | Weather in Ahmedabad | Bank Holidays in Ahmedabad | Public Holidays in Ahmedabad | Gold Rates Today in Ahmedabad | Silver Rates Today in Ahmedabad One of them, then police sub-inspector B C Bilaval, was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment and fined Rs 25,000. He challenged the conviction but died during the pendency of his appeal. His family members pursued the case to clear his name posthumously. After hearing the appeal, Justice Gita Gopi upheld Bilaval's conviction. Citing legal provisions, the court noted: "Fine, as per the provision of the CrPC, is recoverable from the movable and immovable property of the accused. Section 70 of IPC provides that the death of the offender does not discharge the property from liability and the fine would be payable even after the death of the offender and such fine is recoverable from the property of the deceased. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like The #1 Mistake People with Ringing Ears Make Every Night in Bed Derila Ergo Undo " The high court directed the trial court to issue a warrant to the Amreli district collector for recovering the fine amount as arrears of land revenue from the deceased's movable or immovable assets, or both. While ordering the recovery of the fine amount, the HC stated, "It was not a crime buried with the grave, but was in police custody, where every police becomes answerable to the public for his custodial torture. The crime does not fade even after death." The judge further reminded law enforcement: "Let all the police be reminded of the fundamental right enshrined in our Constitution under Article 21 that 'no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law'." Stay updated with the latest local news from your city on Times of India (TOI). Check upcoming bank holidays , public holidays , and current gold rates and silver prices in your area. Get the latest lifestyle updates on Times of India, along with Happy Independence Day wishes , messages , and quotes !
