Read Time: 04 minutes
The plea sought expedited hearings for senior citizens. It stated that fixed time should be granted to senior citizens so they do not have to wait in the court unnecessarily.
In a Public Interest Litigation filed by a Retired Army Officer seeking priority hearing for senior citizens in all courts in Maharashtra, the Bombay High court today remarked that the petition was poorly researched.
The division bench of the Bombay High Court comprising Acting Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Arif Doctor also remarked that the petition looked like an article and did not add necessary government departments as a party.
Captain Haresh Gaglani (Retired) in his plea had pointed out that in November 1999 the Chief Justice of India through a letter had granted priority to senior citizens in court hearings. Further, in August 2009 the Registrar General of the High Court had issued a circular granting priority hearing to senior citizens.
The plea stated that despite directions of the Supreme Court and High Court the senior citizens are not being granted any priority in legal matters which is leading to grave injustice causing extreme pain, distress and despondency in the mind of the senior citizens.
Additionally, the plea added that the right of speedy trial for senior citizens was implicit under Article 14, 19(1)(a), and 21 of the Indian Constitution and also the Code of Civil Procedure.
Further, the PIL states that the guarantee of equal justice is meaningless if physically weak people cannot enforce their rights.
"The aim of Article 14 is to ensure equal justice. The guarantee of equal justice is meaningless if the physically weak, mentally exhausted and socially fearful senior citizens cannot enforce their rights because of their debilities unless the Courts extend a generous and protective helping hand to them," the plea reads
The public interest litigation (PIL) sought directions from the court to ensure that cases related to senior citizens are decided within 180 days of filing.
The plea also sought that quasi-judicial and administrative orders be disposed of within 90 days of hearing.
Finally, the PIL requested that a fixed time be set for hearing senior citizens so that they do not have to wait unnecessarily.
The division bench today allowed the petitioner to withdraw the PIL and file a fresh petition.
Case title: Captain Haresh Gaglani vs State of Maharashtra
Please Login or Register
