SC Issues Directions to Odisha Government for Welfare of Visually Impaired Man and His Elderly Mother

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A Bench comprising CJI Surya Kant and Justice V Mohana took suo motu cognizance of media reports highlighting the plight of Japa Bhue, a visually impaired man, and his 80-year-old mother Radhika Bhue, residents of Bagadia village in Odisha's Subarnapur district, who were reported to be living in extreme poverty. The Court registered the matter as a suo motu case and issued notice to the State of Odisha, directing it to ensure that all social security benefits and basic amenities are extended to the family. 

What Led to the Suo Motu Cognizance? 

• Media reports stated that Japa Bhue, who is blind by birth, and his elderly mother Radhika Bhue were living in a dilapidated house and struggling despite being eligible for welfare benefits. 
• The reports indicated that the two were receiving some pension and food-grain assistance but had not secured the full range of social security measures available to them under government schemes. 
• Following these reports, local authorities initiated inquiries into the family's entitlement to housing and other welfare benefits, and the Supreme Court registered a suo motu case titled "In Re: Ensuring Basic Human Dignity And Social Security For Differently Abled Citizens Living In Extreme Poverty And Other Ancillary Issues." 
• During the hearing, counsel for the State of Odisha informed the Court that a dwelling unit had reportedly been allotted to Radhika Bhue, and that dwelling units had also been allotted to Japa Bhue's brothers. Counsel further submitted that Radhika Bhue was receiving a monthly pension of Rs. 3,500, that Japa Bhue was receiving Rs. 3,500 as disability pension, and that the family was receiving free rice under a government scheme. The Court took these submissions on record but directed the authorities to verify the claims. 

What were the Court's Directions? 

• On affidavit regarding Radhika Bhue's entitlements: The Court directed the State of Odisha to file an affidavit, through an officer not below the rank of Additional Chief Secretary, stating whether old-age pension has been granted to Radhika Bhue, the amount being paid, whether all arrears have been released, and what other social security benefits and welfare schemes she is entitled to under Central and State Government schemes. 
• On affidavit regarding Japa Bhue's entitlements: The Court sought details regarding Japa Bhue's entitlement to disability pension, whether such pension has been granted, and disclosure of other welfare benefits available to him and whether those have actually been provided. 
• On personal interaction by OSLSA: The Court directed Aravind Patnaik, Member Secretary of the Odisha State Legal Services Authority, to personally interact with the family. 
• On medical assistance: The Court directed that if any immediate medical assistance is required for Radhika Bhue or Japa Bhue, the district legal services authorities should coordinate with the Chief Medical Officer to make necessary arrangements. 
• On engagement as para-legal volunteer: The Court directed that Japa Bhue be engaged as a para-legal volunteer to sensitise specially abled persons about their rights and the benefits available under various Central and State welfare schemes, and that he be paid an honorarium not less than the minimum wages notified by the State of Odisha under the Minimum Wages Act. 
• On separate dwelling unit: The Court observed that Japa Bhue, prima facie, appeared entitled to a separate dwelling unit and directed the legal services authority to examine this under applicable government schemes, and to take up the matter with the State Government for appropriate relief if found eligible. 
• On compliance reporting: The Court directed the Odisha State Legal Services Authority to submit a separate report on the social security measures extended to the family, including allotment of any dwelling unit, and directed the State to file a status report with complete details of benefits extended, listing the matter for the third week of July 2026.

What is Suo Motu Jurisdiction? 

Definition: Suo motu jurisdiction in India is an aspect of judicial activism, where courts independently initiate proceedings to address significant public issues, particularly those related to human rights violations and environmental protection. 

Purpose: 

• Ensures justice for disadvantaged groups unable to approach the courts themselves. 
• Critics argue it may breach the separation of powers. 

Legal Framework: 

• There is no specific law for suo moto jurisdiction, but it is recognized under the Supreme Court Rules (2014). 
• In matters involving fundamental rights, such cognizance is exercised in conjunction with the Court's jurisdiction under Article 32, and its powers under Article 142 to pass orders necessary for doing complete justice. 
• Such matters are typically registered as a distinct case (often titled "In Re:"), with the State or relevant authority impleaded as a party, as in the present case.

Landmark Cases: 

• Silent Valley Case: Initiated the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) movement in environmental issues. 
• Sarin Memorial Legal Aid Foundation v. State of Punjab (2017): Addressed encroachments in Sukhna Lake's catchment area. 
• Doon Valley Case: Supreme Court treated a letter as a writ petition under Article 32, leading to a mining ban in Dehradun.