In the case of charanjit singh Ahluwalia V. union of india in a writ petition, the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act of 2007’s Section 23(1) is contested as being unconstitutional. The 96-year-old petitioner forced and coerced his two sons into transferring a gift of his rental property.
Submission from parties
The learned attorney for the Union of India claims that when the Kerala High Court addressed the same problem, it declined to grant Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act retrospective effect and found that it was only intended to have a prospective impact.
Analysis of Court Order
The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act of 2007’s section 23, which specifies specific situations in which a senior citizen’s transfer of property shall be void, has been rejected by the Delhi High Court. The petition filed by one Chiranjit Singh Ahluwalia challenging the validity of the provision was dismissed by a division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad on the grounds that the provision’s application is limited to gifts of property made by senior citizens only after the legislation’s the beginning and not before
The position taken by the High Court of Kerala has the support of this Court. The Act did not seek to interfere with the donee’s established and already-vested rights. Although the purpose of the Act is to provide for measures for the welfare of elderly persons, the Legislature is aware that vested rights of the donor are not to be given a retrospective operation.This is not a casus omissus case, and the court cannot change the provision to become something it was not intended to be by the legislature in the course of exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. In light of the foregoing, this Court concludes that the current matter does not qualify for it to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. However, it is made clear that if the petitioner approaches the appropriate authority in line with the Senior Citizens Act, the appropriate authority is required to decide the petitioner’s lawsuit in a legal manner. Based on this conclusion the court dismissed the petition.