The Government’s announcement regarding proposed legislation to protect abandoned elders should ignite a crucial national conversation. As revealed by Rural Development, Social Security, and Community Empowerment Deputy Minister Wasantha Piyathissa, the State is drafting a framework to seize properties transferred by elderly parents to their children, if those parents are subsequently neglected.
The revenue generated from these recovered assets would then be channelled directly into State-managed care, medical support, and specialised elder care facilities. While the underlying objective is undeniably noble, the mechanics of the proposed law raise legal, ethical, and practical questions that require meticulous examination.
Sri Lanka is grappling with one of the fastest-ageing populations in South Asia, a demographic shift severely exacerbated by the ongoing economic climate. The traditional, culturally ingrained safety net of familial care is fraying. A massive wave of youth migration has left thousands of senior citizens physically isolated, while relentless domestic inflation has forced many families to view elderly care as an unaffordable financial burden. In this desperate climate, instances of children securing property via deeds of gift and promptly abandoning their parents have risen sharply.
The primary argument in favour of the Government’s proposal is that it introduces a robust deterrent against filial ingratitude. Currently, under the Revocation of Irrevocable Deeds of Gift on the Ground of Gross Ingratitude Act, No. 5 of 2017, a neglected parent must personally initiate a costly, emotionally draining, and protracted civil lawsuit to reclaim their property. For an elderly citizen suffering from physical frailty or cognitive decline, this requirement is a virtually insurmountable barrier. By allowing the State to step in and assume custody of the asset, the burden of litigation is lifted from the victim. Furthermore, using the property to generate self-funding welfare streams prevents further strain on an already depleted national treasury.
However, the cons of this approach are alarming and point to a significant risk of State overreach. Freehold property rights are a cornerstone of civil law in Sri Lanka. Allowing administrative organs to confiscate absolute private ownership because of a domestic moral failure sets a dangerous legal precedent. The most glaring hazard lies in the potential for bureaucratic corruption and abuse. The execution of this law would inevitably rely on grass-roots officials, such as Grama Niladharis and social service officers, to investigate and report neglect. In a system already vulnerable to bribery, the power to trigger a process that revokes a land deed could easily be weaponised by vindictive relatives or corrupt land grabbers falsifying claims of elder abandonment. Furthermore, severe legal complications arise if a child has already mortgaged the land to a commercial bank or sold it to a third-party purchaser in good faith.
Sri Lanka does not need to reinvent the wheel to solve this crisis. Neighbouring Asian Nations facing identical demographic pressures have instituted highly effective legal frameworks that completely avoid the messy entanglement of direct property seizure.
Singapore’s Maintenance of Parents Act offers a purely financial and consensus-driven model. Instead of seizing physical assets, the State empowers vulnerable elders to claim monthly maintenance allowances directly from their children’s salaries. Crucially, Singapore enforces a mandatory conciliation filter. Parents and children must undergo State-mediated arbitration to resolve disputes privately before any tribunal hearing is granted, successfully preserving family structures while avoiding State interference in private property.
India’s Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act provides an alternative legislative blueprint. India established fast-track local Maintenance Tribunals where elders can file claims without expensive legal representation. If a senior citizen has transferred property on the condition of receiving care and is subsequently neglected, the tribunal simply declares the transfer deed void. Crucially, the property reverts directly to the parent’s name, ensuring the State never assumes custody or ownership of private land.
As the Government drafts this legislation, it must pivot away from becoming a national real estate manager. The State’s role should be that of a strict regulator and facilitator of justice, not a custodian of private assets. If Sri Lanka is to protect its elders without compromising the rule of law, the final framework must rely on fast-tracked judicial tribunals, clear objective definitions of neglect, and an absolute right of return for the property directly to the parent, rather than State acquisition. Our senior citizens deserve robust protection, but the remedy must not be allowed to become as dangerous as the disease.