12 April 2025 Legal Updates

  SENIOR CITIZENS ACT | SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS EVICTION ORDER PASSED AGAINST SON & DAUGHTER-IN-LAW FROM ELDERLY MAN'S PROPERTY  

a. Case Name:

• Rajeswar Prasad Roy vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.  

b. Court:

• Supreme Court of India  

c. Date of Decision:

• January 30, 2025  

d. Bench:

• Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta  

Facts:

The appellant, a 75-year-old retired Junior Engineer, owned a self-acquired property (Preeti Rest House) transferred to him by the Bihar State Housing Board. His son and daughter-in-law occupied three rooms in the property without consent, allegedly harassing the appellant and disrupting his livelihood.  The appellant filed for eviction under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The Maintenance Tribunal and a Single Judge of the Patna High Court ruled in his favor, ordering eviction. However, the Division Bench overturned this, stating the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to order eviction without a specific maintenance claim.  

Key Issues:

• Whether the Tribunal under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 has the authority to order eviction for protecting senior citizens’ welfare.  
• Whether the property in dispute is ancestral (claimed by son and daughter in law) or self-acquired (claimed by senior citizen).  

Key Observations:

• Self-Acquired Property: The property was conclusively proven to be self-acquired through the 1982 Plot Possession Report and 1992 lease deed.  
• Tribunal’s Authority: Citing S. Vantha v. Deputy Commissioner (2021), the Court held that Tribunals under the Act can order eviction if necessary to ensure a senior citizen’s maintenance and protection. Eviction is an "incident of enforcement" of their rights.  
• Respondents’ Conduct: The Respondents’ actions (encroachment, criminal complaints) demonstrated harassment, justifying eviction.  
• Rule 21 of Bihar Senior Citizens Rules, 2012: Emphasized the state’s duty to protect senior citizens’ lives and property.  

Judgement:

• The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, restoring the eviction order. Respondents (son and daughter-in-law) were directed to vacate the property by May 31, 2025. The Tribunal’s original eviction order was restored.  

Key Takeaway:

• Senior Citizens Act, 2007: Provides a speedy mechanism to protect senior citizens’ rights, including eviction of encroachers.  
• Hierarchy of Courts: Civil courts are barred from interfering in matters under the Act once the Tribunal has jurisdiction.  

PRESIDENT MUST DECIDE ON BILLS RESERVED BY GOVERNOR WITHIN 3 MONTHS; STATES CAN APPROACH COURTS AGAINST PRESIDENT'S INACTION: SUPREME COURT

a. Case Name:

• The State of Tamil Nadu v. The Governor of Tamil Nadu & Anr.  

b. Court:

• Supreme Court of India  

c. Date of Decision:

• 8th April 2025

d. Bench:

• Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan  

FACTS

The Tamil Nadu government filed a writ petition against the Governor’s inaction on:  

• 10 Bills passed by the state legislature (2020–2023) reserved for the President’s assent under Article 201 without timely action.  
• Delays in sanctioning prosecutions, prisoner releases, and Public Service Commission appointments.  
• The Governor withheld assent for months, prompting the state to approach the Supreme Court.  

Key Issues:

• Can the Governor’s inaction on bills and files be challenged as unconstitutional?  
• Is the President’s withholding of assent to state bills justiciable?  
• What are the time limits and procedures for the Governor/President to decide on bills?  

Supreme Court’s Observations  

1. Governor’s Role:  

• Must act on bills promptly. Reservation for the President’s assent must be based on specific constitutional grounds (e.g., unconstitutionality, conflict with Union powers).  
• If the Governor acts against the state cabinet’s advice, the action is justiciable.  

2. President’s Role:  

• Must decide on reserved bills within 3 months. Delay requires recorded reasons.  
• Withholding assent is reviewable:  
• Limited judicial review if based on national policy/immunity (e.g., arbitrariness/mala fides).  
• Full judicial review if the bill’s constitutionality is challenged (e.g., threats to democracy).  

3. Judicial Remedies:  

• States can seek a writ of mandamus for executive inaction.  
• The President may seek the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion under Article 143 to avoid bias allegations.  

4. Outcome:

• The Governor’s reservation of 10 Bills was declared non-est (invalid) due to procedural violations.  
• Using Article 142, the Court deemed the Bills “assented” to prevent injustice from prolonged delays.  

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Governors/Presidents must act on bills within prescribed timelines and provide clear reasons for reservations.  
• Judicial review ensures accountability for arbitrary actions, balancing federalism and constitutional duties.