Tanya Sara George*
Supply: LexLife India
The article critiques India’s anti-beggary legal guidelines, arguing that the prevailing authorized framework displays a punitive legacy of colonial governance repurposed for contemporary exclusionary ends. The evaluation reveals how these statutes systematically conflate poverty with criminality, functioning primarily as devices of exclusion and social management, reinforcing city elitism, whereas granting unchecked discretion to state actors and undermining elementary rights. Using the hurt and welfare theories of criminalisation, the article appraises the normative legitimacy of penalising destitution and urges a elementary reorientation of state coverage in direction of rights-based,
rehabilitative frameworks rooted in dignity and constitutional morality.
Introduction
“The separation between existential realities and the rhetoric of socialism indulged in by the wielders of energy within the authorities can’t be extra profound.”
– Anand Chakravarti
Begging is usually resorted to by marginalized and susceptible members of society. The federal government phrases beggary as “probably the most excessive type of poverty” and has said that long-term options are a necessity to higher deal with begging. Regardless of this understanding, the nation has usually taken a unipolar view in addressing beggary by constantly resorting to anti-beggary statutes that criminalise vagrancy. Notably, a complete of twenty-two states and Union Territories have aligned with this strategy.
Within the first two months of 2025, Indore and Bhopal have criminalised the giving of alms to beggars inside their boundaries below Part 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (‘BNSS’), which permits orders to be issued in pressing circumstances of nuisance or apprehended hazard. These legal guidelines are usually used to ‘cleanse’ India’s look throughout G20 summits. Whereas these options would possibly supply non permanent recourse, they blatantly fail to deal with the foundation causes of the issue and inadvertently lead to a vicious cycle resulting in extra vagrancy.
The current article elaborates on and critiques anti-beggary laws in India. Firstly, the creator explains the legal guidelines on criminalizing vagrancy in India and its salient options. Secondly, the creator explores judicial selections on the authorized stance on beggary. Thirdly, the creator poses a three-pronged critique of the current authorized stance, analysing the failings within the present strategy whereas situating this inside theories of prison legislation. The critique first targets the misuse of those provisions and the heightened scope for undue discretionary energy. Secondly, the creator analyses the foundations behind these theories and argues that they fulfil no theoretical goal utilizing the hurt idea and the welfare idea of criminalisation. Thirdly, the creator argues that the current modus, stemming from an elitist perspective, is focused at exclusion, invisibility and concrete aesthetics moderately than public curiosity or welfare.
The Authorized Stance on Beggary
The roots of the current authorized strategy in criminalising beggary are colonial. It developed from the European Vagrancy Act of 1869, which was formulated with the intent to protect the racial superiority of the British as towards their unemployed Indian counterparts who have been begging for alms. Beneath Part 109 of the Code of Prison Process, any Justice of the Peace was empowered to ask any particular person with none “ostensible technique of subsistence, or who can not give a passable account of himself” to execute a bond, with sureties, for good behaviour as much as one yr. As famous (p.6) by Radhika Singh, these provisions oft allowed magistrates to proceed below the garb of selective criminalisation. They might deduce prison behaviour from social antecedents alone, via unchecked govt discretion (p.19) via the Vagrancy Act. This allowed the British to detain undesirable sections of society, as such people didn’t possess the sources to execute a bond and have been pushed right into a class of malefactors.
Beneath Indore’s new legislation, it’s not merely vagrancy that’s criminalised; however anybody who encourages beggary by providing alms would even be liable to prison motion towards them. The administration has categorized giving alms to beggars as a ‘sin’ and requested individuals to not give. This initiative, in idea, aligns with a coverage of the Union Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment whereby they purpose to make cities within the nation ‘beggar-free’. Nevertheless, it’s pertinent to notice that the Help for Marginalised People for Livelihood and Enterprise (‘SMILE’) initiative’s goal is to succeed in a situation of being beggar-free by providing sufficient and long-term options, which inter alia embrace rehabilitative measures and skill-building applications. Equally, Bhopal has taken the identical strategy and criminalised the providing of alms to beggars. The district has additionally banned the acquisition of any items from beggars. Each these legal guidelines penalise individuals below Part 223 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, i.e., disobeying an order introduced by a public servant, in the event that they act in contravention of the order.
The Bombay Prevention of Beggary Act of 1959 (‘BPBA’) was the primary laws explicitly banning begging. This legislation was prolonged to Delhi in 1960. Authorized support didn’t exist (p.282) for such people till the yr 2000. These legal guidelines have been geared toward invisibility and exclusion. For instance, Part 10 provides a chief commissioner powers to order the detention of “incurably helpless beggars”. This enables him to indefinitely detain people he deems to be ‘incurably helpless.’ Mumbai continues to deal with these detention amenities, with the police allowed to detain any particular person they assume has no technique of sustenance.
Part 9 of the Bombay Act permits for the court docket to order the detention of the dependant particular person of the accused, once more left to the discretion of the authorities. It’s pertinent to notice that these legal guidelines don’t present rehabilitative amenities or academic or vocational coaching to assist beggars reintegrate as members of society. Additional, Part 19 imposes handbook labour upon these detainees with no recognition or remuneration in return. Sarcastically, even in prison prisons, being paid to work is a elementary (p.14) proper.
Additional, the act embodies the widest interpretation potential in defining a beggar. This interpretation can be adopted by the Jammu And Kashmir Prevention Of Beggary Act of 1960. As per Part 2(a) of the act, a beggar is any one that is:
- Soliciting or receiving alms in a public place, whether or not or not below any pretence corresponding to singing, dancing, fortune telling, performing, or providing any article on the market;
- getting into on any premises for the aim of soliciting or receiving alms;
- exposing or exhibiting, with the item of acquiring or extorting alms, any sore, wound, damage, deformity, or illness, whether or not of a human being or animal;
- having no seen technique of subsistence and, wandering about or remaining in any public place in such situation or method, as makes it doubtless that the particular person doing so exists by soliciting or receiving alms
This enables for an excessively large interpretation of who a beggar is. It grants discretion to authorities to utilise the legislation as they see match towards susceptible sections of society. As can be mentioned in additional sections, these provisions are sometimes utilized in misguided makes an attempt to scrub the streets of anybody in poverty, not simply ‘beggars’. This has resulted in a paradox whereby beggars are criminalised for being in abject poverty, whereas additionally putting the claws of the legislation upon them in the event that they try to maneuver themselves out of poverty by partaking in accessible self-employment on the road.
A Jurisprudential Lens
A single choose of the Delhi HC in Ram Lakhan v State laid the premise of choices militating towards anti-beggary laws within the nation. The choice arose from a revision petition whereby the choose rightfully noticed the abominable regard for human rights given to beggars in India. The Justice of the Peace, within the earlier choice, had repeatedly described the beggar as “elevating his entrance paws” as a substitute of utilizing the fitting terminology, displaying a scant regard for beggars within the nation. Additional, the Social Investigation Report had noticed (p.38) that the accused was a ordinary beggar, a declare he was not even allowed to contest. Though Justice Ahmed couldn’t delve into the constitutionality of the legislation, he extensively detailed how these legal guidelines are violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Indian Structure.
In 2018, a bench consisting of Justices Gita Mittal and Hari Shankar in Harsh Mander v Union of India declared sure sections of the anti-beggary legislation in Delhi unconstitutional. The court docket, nonetheless, upheld sure sections, corresponding to part 11, which penalises individuals who make use of beggars. Arguably, this part relies on the welfare precept and has an inexpensive nexus to the prevention of exploitation. Herein, it may be emphatically noticed that the court docket used humanitarian rules to solely prohibit acts that have been presumptivelyharmful moderately than to penalize people for circumstances they’re born into. As famous within the choice, the court docket primarily discovered violations of Article 14 and Article 21. As held within the majority opinion in Perka v. The Queen, necessity is classed as a situation whereby the wrongful act was unavoidable, and it is just if the particular person has a authorized means out that the choice to disobey is a voluntary one. Within the on the spot case, the court docket famous that begging shouldn’t be a aware choice, however people are pushed to it by necessity attributable to extraneous elements, and thereby, arresting them for one thing they can not management could be wholly violative of Article 21.
Article 14 requires that people should be handled equally below the legislation. A crucial corollary to that is that unequal people should be handled unequally. Thus, the legislation should have some intelligible differentia to make sure that the legal guidelines are carried out towards individuals deserving of the identical, and never others. Within the on the spot case, the court docket rightly famous that the Act grossly fails to distinguish between people who’re making an attempt to make a residing by avenue merchandising or avenue performances, in distinction to people begging for alms, thereby turning into violative of Article 14.
In 2019, the J&Okay HC in Suhail Rashid Bhat v State of Jammu & Kashmir went a step additional and held that the anti-beggary legislation enacted within the state is extremely vires the structure and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(a) and 21. The rationale of the court docket was just like the strategy taken within the Harsh Mander choice. The court docket noticed that criminalizing beggary could be violative of Article 19(1)(a). Begging is a type of communication within the sense that beggars, by their appearances, actions or pleas, enchantment to people for his or her assist from abject poverty.
The classification of begging below Article 19(1)(a) could be clarified by the Spence Check (p. 418) drawn from American jurisprudence. The take a look at holds {that a} sure motion falls below free speech if, firstly, the particular person performing the impugned exercise did it with an intention to speak a ‘particularised message’ and secondly, whether or not the exercise was such that the observer would possibly understand it to fall throughout the boundaries of ‘speech’ below First Modification. Contemplating the primary prong, begging includes the beggar displaying his depressing plight via phrases or actions and requesting alms by phrases (spoken or written) or actions. Due to this fact, it’s supposed to tell somebody of their plight. Secondly, as held in Craig Profit v. Metropolis of Cambridge & Others, begging is categorised as speech below the First Modification. Due to this fact, begging is a way of expressing oneself and qualifies for defense below Artwork. 19(1)(a).
The legality of anti-beggary laws got here into query once more in 2021. Amidst COVID-19, a PIL was filed within the Supreme Courtroom to limit begging in public locations and streets. The Courtroom refused to allow a ban on begging in public areas, noting that individuals are compelled to beg because of a scarcity of autonomy and said that banning their supply of sustenance with out addressing the root trigger of the problem could be “an elitist view”. Quite, the court docket questioned the state on the prayer concerning the rehabilitation and vaccination of beggars and vagabonds, and on offering them with shelter and meals amid the pandemic.
Lately, a PIL was filed by Kush Kalra, a former member of the Nationwide Human Rights Fee, within the Punjab and Haryana HC, labelling anti-begging laws as “antithetical to the thought of freedom of speech and expression assured below Article 19(1)”. The PIL broadly argued that there’s an onus on the state to make sure that people are assured a minimal stage of a dignified life, and so they can not violate this by equating beggary to a prison offence. The PIL was set to be heard in March 2025.
A Critique of the Regulation
To elaborate on the criticisms of the authorized stance, the creator posits three main considerations. Firstly, she argues that the legislation is being misused to grant an unchecked quantity of discretion, with out recourse for detained people. Secondly, she argues that the theories of criminalisation don’t help criminalising begging, which calls into query the state’s bona fides in doing the identical. Thirdly, the creator criticizes the laws by arguing that these legal guidelines are inherently made to realize aims of invisibility, exclusion and ‘city aesthetics’ moderately than rehabilitation or public curiosity.
Firstly, as established earlier, anti-beggary legal guidelines usually violate a plethora of elementary rights. Present literature (p.285) signifies that quite a few individuals who’ve been detained and punished by these legal guidelines have been each day labourers who had beforehand by no means resorted to begging however have been merely current in public areas. Additional, there’s a important quantity of discretion granted to law enforcement officials below these acts to select anybody off the streets, and there was proof indicating (p.36) that it might have been misused. Judges would ship (p.38) beggars to detention amenities by merely glancing at their faces with out even making an attempt to ascertain whether or not they, the truth is, had a way of survival. Additional, as famous within the 223rd Regulation Fee report, these amenities deprive people of important rights corresponding to sufficient meals, clear water, correct shelter, and private hygiene.
Secondly, the hurt precept (p.59) is a seminal precept in deciding whether or not a sure act should be criminalised. It holds that an motion could also be criminalised if it causes hurt to a different particular person. It permits state infringement on a specific side of life, provided that hurt is brought on to others. It’s pertinent to situate this idea within the context of anti-beggary legislation because it exhibits how the legislation shouldn’t be used to fulfil its goal of public security. Begging, if completed peacefully, outwardly harms nobody. Herein, the legislators have fallaciously criminalised a helpless state of being, moderately than an act supposed to or really leading to hurt. This begs the query, what’s the state actually criminalising, poverty or beggary?
Such criminalisation additionally can’t be justified below the welfare idea (p.58). The welfare idea argues that the state is justified in pursuing a sure goal if it holds an overarching constructive impact on public welfare. Nevertheless, criminalising begging, with no different technique of assist, has not resulted in a discount in begging, as said within the UP Regulation Fee report in addition to the 2011 Census, which discovered that there have been 4,13,670 within the nation on the time.The UP report clearly notes that “the aim of the act has not been achieved” and classifies the anti-beggary laws as a lifeless enactment.
Subsequent to an oral judgement in Manjula Sen v. Superintendent Beggars’ Residence, the court docket constituted a committee (p.35) to check the BPBA. The committee mentioned with consultants on the legislation and analysed the provisions of different international locations throughout their job. Their ultimate report unanimously concluded that the act is wholly outdated and must be abolished with out additional delay. They famous that those that are compelled to beg require the protecting contact of the legislation, not harsh penalisation. It’s pertinent to notice that the report had categorized the legislation as ‘outdated’ all the way in which again in 1990. Due to this fact, there may be undoubtedly no welfare goal achieved by the state’s purported efforts that proceed right this moment.
On the third prong, the administration appears to have conflated systemic social points with prison points and resorted to harsh prison sanctions with out sufficient rehabilitative amenities. The modus operandi of the state, as seen within the excessively large definition given to who a beggar is, appears to oscillate in direction of these legal guidelines being a type of performative governance as a substitute of efficient governance, as they’re unduly geared toward aims of invisibility and exclusion moderately than rehabilitation and justice. Herein, one begins to wonder if the state is utilizing false claims of harm and welfare to cover the issue as a substitute of fixing it, significantly in city areas.
This argument is substantiated by the all-encompassing scope given to anti-beggary legislations that enables for any particular person who shouldn’t be perceived to be of a minimal financial class to be declared a beggar and thereby excluded them from public locations. As proven within the J&Okay Act, this unmistakably elitist strategy fails to differentiate between beggars and people making an attempt to make a residing. Additional, a PIL filed in 2018 towards an order detaining ‘beggars’ just lately discovered that youngsters and senior residents have been fraudulently saved at beggars’ properties and detained on the pretext that their Aadhar playing cards have been being made for them. Additional, a number of people who have been employed as home assist have been additionally illegally detained. Thus, the lens of elitism is patently seen within the state’s enforcement of such provisions in direction of the furtherance of hasty makes an attempt to marginalise and push subalterns to invisibility.
The exclusion of sure people and their categorisation as much less deserving of human rights is a manifestation of societal inequalities and structural violence. As argued by Foucault, disciplinary energy operates subtly and systematically by shaping behaviour via surveillance, categorisation, and institutional management. Within the current situation, beggars are seen as deviants who should conform to the societal ultimate of a ‘good citizen’. That is mitigated by workouts corresponding to extended detention and disciplining. As evinced in part 19 of the BPBA, individuals detained in such establishments could also be disciplined by the imposition of handbook labour and could also be awarded punishment for any breach of the foundations. It’s pertinent to notice herein that there isn’t a quantum of punishment prescribed, and it appears to have been left to the whims of the administration.
Worldwide selections additionally militate towards criminalisation, with the European Courtroom of Human Rights having completed so twice. Indian anti-beggary legislations additionally lie towards Article 23(1) of the Common Declaration of Human Rights and Article 6(1) of the Worldwide Covenant on Financial, Social and Cultural Rights, which explicitly recognise the fitting to work and the autonomy to decide on the form of work. It is because, below such laws, plainly the fitting to work is granted provided that the work is deemed ‘acceptable’. Moreover, the query of whether or not begging is a prison offence arose within the Lăcătuş v. Switzerland judgement whereby the ECHR held {that a} ban on begging would quantity to a violation of the fitting to household and personal life enshrined in article 8 of the European Conference of Human Rights.
The current makes an attempt to criminalise beggary appear to stem from an exclusionist perspective, moderately than falling below the ambit of a welfare state making an attempt to rehabilitate a piece of its inhabitants. Additional, it consistently reinforces the notion that being poor inherently predisposes you to a lifetime of deviant and prison exercise, which then results in a vicious cycle (p.25) of the underprivileged being pressured into a lifetime of vagrancy. Due to this fact, it’s neither an sufficient mechanism nor a suitable one for addressing this problem, and policymakers should rethink the archaic strategy.
Conclusion
The criminalisation of begging below Bhopal’s coverage displays a broader pattern in India’s authorized framework, one which prioritises city aesthetics and public order over elementary rights and socio-economic realities. It should be reiterated that these legal guidelines have been premised on a colonial relic supposed for sophistication segregation. But, Indians nonetheless allow these legal guidelines, perpetuating the identical concepts of superiority. Whereas proponents argue that such legal guidelines curb organised begging and keep public areas, they fail to account for the systemic elements that push people into destitution. The judiciary has beforehand emphasised that poverty shouldn’t be criminalised, but actions like these proceed.
India already has a blueprint for a much more humane strategy within the Individuals in Destitution (Safety, Care and Rehabilitation) Mannequin Invoice of 2016. It outlines a state Act that’s geared toward offering safety and administering rehabilitation to the destitute and susceptible sections of society. It makes an attempt to create rehabilitation centres that present care, vocational coaching, talent growth, and different crucial providers to destitute individuals. As a step ahead, the invoice additionally has a provision for offering counselling providers to such individuals on the Rehabilitation Centre. Nevertheless, the invoice has not been carried out in any state.
The legislation must be a software for empowerment, not exclusion, and till this shift happens, such insurance policies will stay mere devices of social management masquerading as reform.
*Tanya Sara George is a Third-year B.A.LL.B (Hons) pupil at Maharashtra Nationwide Regulation College, Mumbai.
Tanya Sara George*
Supply: LexLife India
The article critiques India’s anti-beggary legal guidelines, arguing that the prevailing authorized framework displays a punitive legacy of colonial governance repurposed for contemporary exclusionary ends. The evaluation reveals how these statutes systematically conflate poverty with criminality, functioning primarily as devices of exclusion and social management, reinforcing city elitism, whereas granting unchecked discretion to state actors and undermining elementary rights. Using the hurt and welfare theories of criminalisation, the article appraises the normative legitimacy of penalising destitution and urges a elementary reorientation of state coverage in direction of rights-based,
rehabilitative frameworks rooted in dignity and constitutional morality.
Introduction
“The separation between existential realities and the rhetoric of socialism indulged in by the wielders of energy within the authorities can’t be extra profound.”
– Anand Chakravarti
Begging is usually resorted to by marginalized and susceptible members of society. The federal government phrases beggary as “probably the most excessive type of poverty” and has said that long-term options are a necessity to higher deal with begging. Regardless of this understanding, the nation has usually taken a unipolar view in addressing beggary by constantly resorting to anti-beggary statutes that criminalise vagrancy. Notably, a complete of twenty-two states and Union Territories have aligned with this strategy.
Within the first two months of 2025, Indore and Bhopal have criminalised the giving of alms to beggars inside their boundaries below Part 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (‘BNSS’), which permits orders to be issued in pressing circumstances of nuisance or apprehended hazard. These legal guidelines are usually used to ‘cleanse’ India’s look throughout G20 summits. Whereas these options would possibly supply non permanent recourse, they blatantly fail to deal with the foundation causes of the issue and inadvertently lead to a vicious cycle resulting in extra vagrancy.
The current article elaborates on and critiques anti-beggary laws in India. Firstly, the creator explains the legal guidelines on criminalizing vagrancy in India and its salient options. Secondly, the creator explores judicial selections on the authorized stance on beggary. Thirdly, the creator poses a three-pronged critique of the current authorized stance, analysing the failings within the present strategy whereas situating this inside theories of prison legislation. The critique first targets the misuse of those provisions and the heightened scope for undue discretionary energy. Secondly, the creator analyses the foundations behind these theories and argues that they fulfil no theoretical goal utilizing the hurt idea and the welfare idea of criminalisation. Thirdly, the creator argues that the current modus, stemming from an elitist perspective, is focused at exclusion, invisibility and concrete aesthetics moderately than public curiosity or welfare.
The Authorized Stance on Beggary
The roots of the current authorized strategy in criminalising beggary are colonial. It developed from the European Vagrancy Act of 1869, which was formulated with the intent to protect the racial superiority of the British as towards their unemployed Indian counterparts who have been begging for alms. Beneath Part 109 of the Code of Prison Process, any Justice of the Peace was empowered to ask any particular person with none “ostensible technique of subsistence, or who can not give a passable account of himself” to execute a bond, with sureties, for good behaviour as much as one yr. As famous (p.6) by Radhika Singh, these provisions oft allowed magistrates to proceed below the garb of selective criminalisation. They might deduce prison behaviour from social antecedents alone, via unchecked govt discretion (p.19) via the Vagrancy Act. This allowed the British to detain undesirable sections of society, as such people didn’t possess the sources to execute a bond and have been pushed right into a class of malefactors.
Beneath Indore’s new legislation, it’s not merely vagrancy that’s criminalised; however anybody who encourages beggary by providing alms would even be liable to prison motion towards them. The administration has categorized giving alms to beggars as a ‘sin’ and requested individuals to not give. This initiative, in idea, aligns with a coverage of the Union Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment whereby they purpose to make cities within the nation ‘beggar-free’. Nevertheless, it’s pertinent to notice that the Help for Marginalised People for Livelihood and Enterprise (‘SMILE’) initiative’s goal is to succeed in a situation of being beggar-free by providing sufficient and long-term options, which inter alia embrace rehabilitative measures and skill-building applications. Equally, Bhopal has taken the identical strategy and criminalised the providing of alms to beggars. The district has additionally banned the acquisition of any items from beggars. Each these legal guidelines penalise individuals below Part 223 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, i.e., disobeying an order introduced by a public servant, in the event that they act in contravention of the order.
The Bombay Prevention of Beggary Act of 1959 (‘BPBA’) was the primary laws explicitly banning begging. This legislation was prolonged to Delhi in 1960. Authorized support didn’t exist (p.282) for such people till the yr 2000. These legal guidelines have been geared toward invisibility and exclusion. For instance, Part 10 provides a chief commissioner powers to order the detention of “incurably helpless beggars”. This enables him to indefinitely detain people he deems to be ‘incurably helpless.’ Mumbai continues to deal with these detention amenities, with the police allowed to detain any particular person they assume has no technique of sustenance.
Part 9 of the Bombay Act permits for the court docket to order the detention of the dependant particular person of the accused, once more left to the discretion of the authorities. It’s pertinent to notice that these legal guidelines don’t present rehabilitative amenities or academic or vocational coaching to assist beggars reintegrate as members of society. Additional, Part 19 imposes handbook labour upon these detainees with no recognition or remuneration in return. Sarcastically, even in prison prisons, being paid to work is a elementary (p.14) proper.
Additional, the act embodies the widest interpretation potential in defining a beggar. This interpretation can be adopted by the Jammu And Kashmir Prevention Of Beggary Act of 1960. As per Part 2(a) of the act, a beggar is any one that is:
- Soliciting or receiving alms in a public place, whether or not or not below any pretence corresponding to singing, dancing, fortune telling, performing, or providing any article on the market;
- getting into on any premises for the aim of soliciting or receiving alms;
- exposing or exhibiting, with the item of acquiring or extorting alms, any sore, wound, damage, deformity, or illness, whether or not of a human being or animal;
- having no seen technique of subsistence and, wandering about or remaining in any public place in such situation or method, as makes it doubtless that the particular person doing so exists by soliciting or receiving alms
This enables for an excessively large interpretation of who a beggar is. It grants discretion to authorities to utilise the legislation as they see match towards susceptible sections of society. As can be mentioned in additional sections, these provisions are sometimes utilized in misguided makes an attempt to scrub the streets of anybody in poverty, not simply ‘beggars’. This has resulted in a paradox whereby beggars are criminalised for being in abject poverty, whereas additionally putting the claws of the legislation upon them in the event that they try to maneuver themselves out of poverty by partaking in accessible self-employment on the road.
A Jurisprudential Lens
A single choose of the Delhi HC in Ram Lakhan v State laid the premise of choices militating towards anti-beggary laws within the nation. The choice arose from a revision petition whereby the choose rightfully noticed the abominable regard for human rights given to beggars in India. The Justice of the Peace, within the earlier choice, had repeatedly described the beggar as “elevating his entrance paws” as a substitute of utilizing the fitting terminology, displaying a scant regard for beggars within the nation. Additional, the Social Investigation Report had noticed (p.38) that the accused was a ordinary beggar, a declare he was not even allowed to contest. Though Justice Ahmed couldn’t delve into the constitutionality of the legislation, he extensively detailed how these legal guidelines are violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Indian Structure.
In 2018, a bench consisting of Justices Gita Mittal and Hari Shankar in Harsh Mander v Union of India declared sure sections of the anti-beggary legislation in Delhi unconstitutional. The court docket, nonetheless, upheld sure sections, corresponding to part 11, which penalises individuals who make use of beggars. Arguably, this part relies on the welfare precept and has an inexpensive nexus to the prevention of exploitation. Herein, it may be emphatically noticed that the court docket used humanitarian rules to solely prohibit acts that have been presumptivelyharmful moderately than to penalize people for circumstances they’re born into. As famous within the choice, the court docket primarily discovered violations of Article 14 and Article 21. As held within the majority opinion in Perka v. The Queen, necessity is classed as a situation whereby the wrongful act was unavoidable, and it is just if the particular person has a authorized means out that the choice to disobey is a voluntary one. Within the on the spot case, the court docket famous that begging shouldn’t be a aware choice, however people are pushed to it by necessity attributable to extraneous elements, and thereby, arresting them for one thing they can not management could be wholly violative of Article 21.
Article 14 requires that people should be handled equally below the legislation. A crucial corollary to that is that unequal people should be handled unequally. Thus, the legislation should have some intelligible differentia to make sure that the legal guidelines are carried out towards individuals deserving of the identical, and never others. Within the on the spot case, the court docket rightly famous that the Act grossly fails to distinguish between people who’re making an attempt to make a residing by avenue merchandising or avenue performances, in distinction to people begging for alms, thereby turning into violative of Article 14.
In 2019, the J&Okay HC in Suhail Rashid Bhat v State of Jammu & Kashmir went a step additional and held that the anti-beggary legislation enacted within the state is extremely vires the structure and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(a) and 21. The rationale of the court docket was just like the strategy taken within the Harsh Mander choice. The court docket noticed that criminalizing beggary could be violative of Article 19(1)(a). Begging is a type of communication within the sense that beggars, by their appearances, actions or pleas, enchantment to people for his or her assist from abject poverty.
The classification of begging below Article 19(1)(a) could be clarified by the Spence Check (p. 418) drawn from American jurisprudence. The take a look at holds {that a} sure motion falls below free speech if, firstly, the particular person performing the impugned exercise did it with an intention to speak a ‘particularised message’ and secondly, whether or not the exercise was such that the observer would possibly understand it to fall throughout the boundaries of ‘speech’ below First Modification. Contemplating the primary prong, begging includes the beggar displaying his depressing plight via phrases or actions and requesting alms by phrases (spoken or written) or actions. Due to this fact, it’s supposed to tell somebody of their plight. Secondly, as held in Craig Profit v. Metropolis of Cambridge & Others, begging is categorised as speech below the First Modification. Due to this fact, begging is a way of expressing oneself and qualifies for defense below Artwork. 19(1)(a).
The legality of anti-beggary laws got here into query once more in 2021. Amidst COVID-19, a PIL was filed within the Supreme Courtroom to limit begging in public locations and streets. The Courtroom refused to allow a ban on begging in public areas, noting that individuals are compelled to beg because of a scarcity of autonomy and said that banning their supply of sustenance with out addressing the root trigger of the problem could be “an elitist view”. Quite, the court docket questioned the state on the prayer concerning the rehabilitation and vaccination of beggars and vagabonds, and on offering them with shelter and meals amid the pandemic.
Lately, a PIL was filed by Kush Kalra, a former member of the Nationwide Human Rights Fee, within the Punjab and Haryana HC, labelling anti-begging laws as “antithetical to the thought of freedom of speech and expression assured below Article 19(1)”. The PIL broadly argued that there’s an onus on the state to make sure that people are assured a minimal stage of a dignified life, and so they can not violate this by equating beggary to a prison offence. The PIL was set to be heard in March 2025.
A Critique of the Regulation
To elaborate on the criticisms of the authorized stance, the creator posits three main considerations. Firstly, she argues that the legislation is being misused to grant an unchecked quantity of discretion, with out recourse for detained people. Secondly, she argues that the theories of criminalisation don’t help criminalising begging, which calls into query the state’s bona fides in doing the identical. Thirdly, the creator criticizes the laws by arguing that these legal guidelines are inherently made to realize aims of invisibility, exclusion and ‘city aesthetics’ moderately than rehabilitation or public curiosity.
Firstly, as established earlier, anti-beggary legal guidelines usually violate a plethora of elementary rights. Present literature (p.285) signifies that quite a few individuals who’ve been detained and punished by these legal guidelines have been each day labourers who had beforehand by no means resorted to begging however have been merely current in public areas. Additional, there’s a important quantity of discretion granted to law enforcement officials below these acts to select anybody off the streets, and there was proof indicating (p.36) that it might have been misused. Judges would ship (p.38) beggars to detention amenities by merely glancing at their faces with out even making an attempt to ascertain whether or not they, the truth is, had a way of survival. Additional, as famous within the 223rd Regulation Fee report, these amenities deprive people of important rights corresponding to sufficient meals, clear water, correct shelter, and private hygiene.
Secondly, the hurt precept (p.59) is a seminal precept in deciding whether or not a sure act should be criminalised. It holds that an motion could also be criminalised if it causes hurt to a different particular person. It permits state infringement on a specific side of life, provided that hurt is brought on to others. It’s pertinent to situate this idea within the context of anti-beggary legislation because it exhibits how the legislation shouldn’t be used to fulfil its goal of public security. Begging, if completed peacefully, outwardly harms nobody. Herein, the legislators have fallaciously criminalised a helpless state of being, moderately than an act supposed to or really leading to hurt. This begs the query, what’s the state actually criminalising, poverty or beggary?
Such criminalisation additionally can’t be justified below the welfare idea (p.58). The welfare idea argues that the state is justified in pursuing a sure goal if it holds an overarching constructive impact on public welfare. Nevertheless, criminalising begging, with no different technique of assist, has not resulted in a discount in begging, as said within the UP Regulation Fee report in addition to the 2011 Census, which discovered that there have been 4,13,670 within the nation on the time.The UP report clearly notes that “the aim of the act has not been achieved” and classifies the anti-beggary laws as a lifeless enactment.
Subsequent to an oral judgement in Manjula Sen v. Superintendent Beggars’ Residence, the court docket constituted a committee (p.35) to check the BPBA. The committee mentioned with consultants on the legislation and analysed the provisions of different international locations throughout their job. Their ultimate report unanimously concluded that the act is wholly outdated and must be abolished with out additional delay. They famous that those that are compelled to beg require the protecting contact of the legislation, not harsh penalisation. It’s pertinent to notice that the report had categorized the legislation as ‘outdated’ all the way in which again in 1990. Due to this fact, there may be undoubtedly no welfare goal achieved by the state’s purported efforts that proceed right this moment.
On the third prong, the administration appears to have conflated systemic social points with prison points and resorted to harsh prison sanctions with out sufficient rehabilitative amenities. The modus operandi of the state, as seen within the excessively large definition given to who a beggar is, appears to oscillate in direction of these legal guidelines being a type of performative governance as a substitute of efficient governance, as they’re unduly geared toward aims of invisibility and exclusion moderately than rehabilitation and justice. Herein, one begins to wonder if the state is utilizing false claims of harm and welfare to cover the issue as a substitute of fixing it, significantly in city areas.
This argument is substantiated by the all-encompassing scope given to anti-beggary legislations that enables for any particular person who shouldn’t be perceived to be of a minimal financial class to be declared a beggar and thereby excluded them from public locations. As proven within the J&Okay Act, this unmistakably elitist strategy fails to differentiate between beggars and people making an attempt to make a residing. Additional, a PIL filed in 2018 towards an order detaining ‘beggars’ just lately discovered that youngsters and senior residents have been fraudulently saved at beggars’ properties and detained on the pretext that their Aadhar playing cards have been being made for them. Additional, a number of people who have been employed as home assist have been additionally illegally detained. Thus, the lens of elitism is patently seen within the state’s enforcement of such provisions in direction of the furtherance of hasty makes an attempt to marginalise and push subalterns to invisibility.
The exclusion of sure people and their categorisation as much less deserving of human rights is a manifestation of societal inequalities and structural violence. As argued by Foucault, disciplinary energy operates subtly and systematically by shaping behaviour via surveillance, categorisation, and institutional management. Within the current situation, beggars are seen as deviants who should conform to the societal ultimate of a ‘good citizen’. That is mitigated by workouts corresponding to extended detention and disciplining. As evinced in part 19 of the BPBA, individuals detained in such establishments could also be disciplined by the imposition of handbook labour and could also be awarded punishment for any breach of the foundations. It’s pertinent to notice herein that there isn’t a quantum of punishment prescribed, and it appears to have been left to the whims of the administration.
Worldwide selections additionally militate towards criminalisation, with the European Courtroom of Human Rights having completed so twice. Indian anti-beggary legislations additionally lie towards Article 23(1) of the Common Declaration of Human Rights and Article 6(1) of the Worldwide Covenant on Financial, Social and Cultural Rights, which explicitly recognise the fitting to work and the autonomy to decide on the form of work. It is because, below such laws, plainly the fitting to work is granted provided that the work is deemed ‘acceptable’. Moreover, the query of whether or not begging is a prison offence arose within the Lăcătuş v. Switzerland judgement whereby the ECHR held {that a} ban on begging would quantity to a violation of the fitting to household and personal life enshrined in article 8 of the European Conference of Human Rights.
The current makes an attempt to criminalise beggary appear to stem from an exclusionist perspective, moderately than falling below the ambit of a welfare state making an attempt to rehabilitate a piece of its inhabitants. Additional, it consistently reinforces the notion that being poor inherently predisposes you to a lifetime of deviant and prison exercise, which then results in a vicious cycle (p.25) of the underprivileged being pressured into a lifetime of vagrancy. Due to this fact, it’s neither an sufficient mechanism nor a suitable one for addressing this problem, and policymakers should rethink the archaic strategy.
Conclusion
The criminalisation of begging below Bhopal’s coverage displays a broader pattern in India’s authorized framework, one which prioritises city aesthetics and public order over elementary rights and socio-economic realities. It should be reiterated that these legal guidelines have been premised on a colonial relic supposed for sophistication segregation. But, Indians nonetheless allow these legal guidelines, perpetuating the identical concepts of superiority. Whereas proponents argue that such legal guidelines curb organised begging and keep public areas, they fail to account for the systemic elements that push people into destitution. The judiciary has beforehand emphasised that poverty shouldn’t be criminalised, but actions like these proceed.
India already has a blueprint for a much more humane strategy within the Individuals in Destitution (Safety, Care and Rehabilitation) Mannequin Invoice of 2016. It outlines a state Act that’s geared toward offering safety and administering rehabilitation to the destitute and susceptible sections of society. It makes an attempt to create rehabilitation centres that present care, vocational coaching, talent growth, and different crucial providers to destitute individuals. As a step ahead, the invoice additionally has a provision for offering counselling providers to such individuals on the Rehabilitation Centre. Nevertheless, the invoice has not been carried out in any state.
The legislation must be a software for empowerment, not exclusion, and till this shift happens, such insurance policies will stay mere devices of social management masquerading as reform.
*Tanya Sara George is a Third-year B.A.LL.B (Hons) pupil at Maharashtra Nationwide Regulation College, Mumbai.
Tanya Sara George*
Supply: LexLife India
The article critiques India’s anti-beggary legal guidelines, arguing that the prevailing authorized framework displays a punitive legacy of colonial governance repurposed for contemporary exclusionary ends. The evaluation reveals how these statutes systematically conflate poverty with criminality, functioning primarily as devices of exclusion and social management, reinforcing city elitism, whereas granting unchecked discretion to state actors and undermining elementary rights. Using the hurt and welfare theories of criminalisation, the article appraises the normative legitimacy of penalising destitution and urges a elementary reorientation of state coverage in direction of rights-based,
rehabilitative frameworks rooted in dignity and constitutional morality.
Introduction
“The separation between existential realities and the rhetoric of socialism indulged in by the wielders of energy within the authorities can’t be extra profound.”
– Anand Chakravarti
Begging is usually resorted to by marginalized and susceptible members of society. The federal government phrases beggary as “probably the most excessive type of poverty” and has said that long-term options are a necessity to higher deal with begging. Regardless of this understanding, the nation has usually taken a unipolar view in addressing beggary by constantly resorting to anti-beggary statutes that criminalise vagrancy. Notably, a complete of twenty-two states and Union Territories have aligned with this strategy.
Within the first two months of 2025, Indore and Bhopal have criminalised the giving of alms to beggars inside their boundaries below Part 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (‘BNSS’), which permits orders to be issued in pressing circumstances of nuisance or apprehended hazard. These legal guidelines are usually used to ‘cleanse’ India’s look throughout G20 summits. Whereas these options would possibly supply non permanent recourse, they blatantly fail to deal with the foundation causes of the issue and inadvertently lead to a vicious cycle resulting in extra vagrancy.
The current article elaborates on and critiques anti-beggary laws in India. Firstly, the creator explains the legal guidelines on criminalizing vagrancy in India and its salient options. Secondly, the creator explores judicial selections on the authorized stance on beggary. Thirdly, the creator poses a three-pronged critique of the current authorized stance, analysing the failings within the present strategy whereas situating this inside theories of prison legislation. The critique first targets the misuse of those provisions and the heightened scope for undue discretionary energy. Secondly, the creator analyses the foundations behind these theories and argues that they fulfil no theoretical goal utilizing the hurt idea and the welfare idea of criminalisation. Thirdly, the creator argues that the current modus, stemming from an elitist perspective, is focused at exclusion, invisibility and concrete aesthetics moderately than public curiosity or welfare.
The Authorized Stance on Beggary
The roots of the current authorized strategy in criminalising beggary are colonial. It developed from the European Vagrancy Act of 1869, which was formulated with the intent to protect the racial superiority of the British as towards their unemployed Indian counterparts who have been begging for alms. Beneath Part 109 of the Code of Prison Process, any Justice of the Peace was empowered to ask any particular person with none “ostensible technique of subsistence, or who can not give a passable account of himself” to execute a bond, with sureties, for good behaviour as much as one yr. As famous (p.6) by Radhika Singh, these provisions oft allowed magistrates to proceed below the garb of selective criminalisation. They might deduce prison behaviour from social antecedents alone, via unchecked govt discretion (p.19) via the Vagrancy Act. This allowed the British to detain undesirable sections of society, as such people didn’t possess the sources to execute a bond and have been pushed right into a class of malefactors.
Beneath Indore’s new legislation, it’s not merely vagrancy that’s criminalised; however anybody who encourages beggary by providing alms would even be liable to prison motion towards them. The administration has categorized giving alms to beggars as a ‘sin’ and requested individuals to not give. This initiative, in idea, aligns with a coverage of the Union Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment whereby they purpose to make cities within the nation ‘beggar-free’. Nevertheless, it’s pertinent to notice that the Help for Marginalised People for Livelihood and Enterprise (‘SMILE’) initiative’s goal is to succeed in a situation of being beggar-free by providing sufficient and long-term options, which inter alia embrace rehabilitative measures and skill-building applications. Equally, Bhopal has taken the identical strategy and criminalised the providing of alms to beggars. The district has additionally banned the acquisition of any items from beggars. Each these legal guidelines penalise individuals below Part 223 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, i.e., disobeying an order introduced by a public servant, in the event that they act in contravention of the order.
The Bombay Prevention of Beggary Act of 1959 (‘BPBA’) was the primary laws explicitly banning begging. This legislation was prolonged to Delhi in 1960. Authorized support didn’t exist (p.282) for such people till the yr 2000. These legal guidelines have been geared toward invisibility and exclusion. For instance, Part 10 provides a chief commissioner powers to order the detention of “incurably helpless beggars”. This enables him to indefinitely detain people he deems to be ‘incurably helpless.’ Mumbai continues to deal with these detention amenities, with the police allowed to detain any particular person they assume has no technique of sustenance.
Part 9 of the Bombay Act permits for the court docket to order the detention of the dependant particular person of the accused, once more left to the discretion of the authorities. It’s pertinent to notice that these legal guidelines don’t present rehabilitative amenities or academic or vocational coaching to assist beggars reintegrate as members of society. Additional, Part 19 imposes handbook labour upon these detainees with no recognition or remuneration in return. Sarcastically, even in prison prisons, being paid to work is a elementary (p.14) proper.
Additional, the act embodies the widest interpretation potential in defining a beggar. This interpretation can be adopted by the Jammu And Kashmir Prevention Of Beggary Act of 1960. As per Part 2(a) of the act, a beggar is any one that is:
- Soliciting or receiving alms in a public place, whether or not or not below any pretence corresponding to singing, dancing, fortune telling, performing, or providing any article on the market;
- getting into on any premises for the aim of soliciting or receiving alms;
- exposing or exhibiting, with the item of acquiring or extorting alms, any sore, wound, damage, deformity, or illness, whether or not of a human being or animal;
- having no seen technique of subsistence and, wandering about or remaining in any public place in such situation or method, as makes it doubtless that the particular person doing so exists by soliciting or receiving alms
This enables for an excessively large interpretation of who a beggar is. It grants discretion to authorities to utilise the legislation as they see match towards susceptible sections of society. As can be mentioned in additional sections, these provisions are sometimes utilized in misguided makes an attempt to scrub the streets of anybody in poverty, not simply ‘beggars’. This has resulted in a paradox whereby beggars are criminalised for being in abject poverty, whereas additionally putting the claws of the legislation upon them in the event that they try to maneuver themselves out of poverty by partaking in accessible self-employment on the road.
A Jurisprudential Lens
A single choose of the Delhi HC in Ram Lakhan v State laid the premise of choices militating towards anti-beggary laws within the nation. The choice arose from a revision petition whereby the choose rightfully noticed the abominable regard for human rights given to beggars in India. The Justice of the Peace, within the earlier choice, had repeatedly described the beggar as “elevating his entrance paws” as a substitute of utilizing the fitting terminology, displaying a scant regard for beggars within the nation. Additional, the Social Investigation Report had noticed (p.38) that the accused was a ordinary beggar, a declare he was not even allowed to contest. Though Justice Ahmed couldn’t delve into the constitutionality of the legislation, he extensively detailed how these legal guidelines are violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Indian Structure.
In 2018, a bench consisting of Justices Gita Mittal and Hari Shankar in Harsh Mander v Union of India declared sure sections of the anti-beggary legislation in Delhi unconstitutional. The court docket, nonetheless, upheld sure sections, corresponding to part 11, which penalises individuals who make use of beggars. Arguably, this part relies on the welfare precept and has an inexpensive nexus to the prevention of exploitation. Herein, it may be emphatically noticed that the court docket used humanitarian rules to solely prohibit acts that have been presumptivelyharmful moderately than to penalize people for circumstances they’re born into. As famous within the choice, the court docket primarily discovered violations of Article 14 and Article 21. As held within the majority opinion in Perka v. The Queen, necessity is classed as a situation whereby the wrongful act was unavoidable, and it is just if the particular person has a authorized means out that the choice to disobey is a voluntary one. Within the on the spot case, the court docket famous that begging shouldn’t be a aware choice, however people are pushed to it by necessity attributable to extraneous elements, and thereby, arresting them for one thing they can not management could be wholly violative of Article 21.
Article 14 requires that people should be handled equally below the legislation. A crucial corollary to that is that unequal people should be handled unequally. Thus, the legislation should have some intelligible differentia to make sure that the legal guidelines are carried out towards individuals deserving of the identical, and never others. Within the on the spot case, the court docket rightly famous that the Act grossly fails to distinguish between people who’re making an attempt to make a residing by avenue merchandising or avenue performances, in distinction to people begging for alms, thereby turning into violative of Article 14.
In 2019, the J&Okay HC in Suhail Rashid Bhat v State of Jammu & Kashmir went a step additional and held that the anti-beggary legislation enacted within the state is extremely vires the structure and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(a) and 21. The rationale of the court docket was just like the strategy taken within the Harsh Mander choice. The court docket noticed that criminalizing beggary could be violative of Article 19(1)(a). Begging is a type of communication within the sense that beggars, by their appearances, actions or pleas, enchantment to people for his or her assist from abject poverty.
The classification of begging below Article 19(1)(a) could be clarified by the Spence Check (p. 418) drawn from American jurisprudence. The take a look at holds {that a} sure motion falls below free speech if, firstly, the particular person performing the impugned exercise did it with an intention to speak a ‘particularised message’ and secondly, whether or not the exercise was such that the observer would possibly understand it to fall throughout the boundaries of ‘speech’ below First Modification. Contemplating the primary prong, begging includes the beggar displaying his depressing plight via phrases or actions and requesting alms by phrases (spoken or written) or actions. Due to this fact, it’s supposed to tell somebody of their plight. Secondly, as held in Craig Profit v. Metropolis of Cambridge & Others, begging is categorised as speech below the First Modification. Due to this fact, begging is a way of expressing oneself and qualifies for defense below Artwork. 19(1)(a).
The legality of anti-beggary laws got here into query once more in 2021. Amidst COVID-19, a PIL was filed within the Supreme Courtroom to limit begging in public locations and streets. The Courtroom refused to allow a ban on begging in public areas, noting that individuals are compelled to beg because of a scarcity of autonomy and said that banning their supply of sustenance with out addressing the root trigger of the problem could be “an elitist view”. Quite, the court docket questioned the state on the prayer concerning the rehabilitation and vaccination of beggars and vagabonds, and on offering them with shelter and meals amid the pandemic.
Lately, a PIL was filed by Kush Kalra, a former member of the Nationwide Human Rights Fee, within the Punjab and Haryana HC, labelling anti-begging laws as “antithetical to the thought of freedom of speech and expression assured below Article 19(1)”. The PIL broadly argued that there’s an onus on the state to make sure that people are assured a minimal stage of a dignified life, and so they can not violate this by equating beggary to a prison offence. The PIL was set to be heard in March 2025.
A Critique of the Regulation
To elaborate on the criticisms of the authorized stance, the creator posits three main considerations. Firstly, she argues that the legislation is being misused to grant an unchecked quantity of discretion, with out recourse for detained people. Secondly, she argues that the theories of criminalisation don’t help criminalising begging, which calls into query the state’s bona fides in doing the identical. Thirdly, the creator criticizes the laws by arguing that these legal guidelines are inherently made to realize aims of invisibility, exclusion and ‘city aesthetics’ moderately than rehabilitation or public curiosity.
Firstly, as established earlier, anti-beggary legal guidelines usually violate a plethora of elementary rights. Present literature (p.285) signifies that quite a few individuals who’ve been detained and punished by these legal guidelines have been each day labourers who had beforehand by no means resorted to begging however have been merely current in public areas. Additional, there’s a important quantity of discretion granted to law enforcement officials below these acts to select anybody off the streets, and there was proof indicating (p.36) that it might have been misused. Judges would ship (p.38) beggars to detention amenities by merely glancing at their faces with out even making an attempt to ascertain whether or not they, the truth is, had a way of survival. Additional, as famous within the 223rd Regulation Fee report, these amenities deprive people of important rights corresponding to sufficient meals, clear water, correct shelter, and private hygiene.
Secondly, the hurt precept (p.59) is a seminal precept in deciding whether or not a sure act should be criminalised. It holds that an motion could also be criminalised if it causes hurt to a different particular person. It permits state infringement on a specific side of life, provided that hurt is brought on to others. It’s pertinent to situate this idea within the context of anti-beggary legislation because it exhibits how the legislation shouldn’t be used to fulfil its goal of public security. Begging, if completed peacefully, outwardly harms nobody. Herein, the legislators have fallaciously criminalised a helpless state of being, moderately than an act supposed to or really leading to hurt. This begs the query, what’s the state actually criminalising, poverty or beggary?
Such criminalisation additionally can’t be justified below the welfare idea (p.58). The welfare idea argues that the state is justified in pursuing a sure goal if it holds an overarching constructive impact on public welfare. Nevertheless, criminalising begging, with no different technique of assist, has not resulted in a discount in begging, as said within the UP Regulation Fee report in addition to the 2011 Census, which discovered that there have been 4,13,670 within the nation on the time.The UP report clearly notes that “the aim of the act has not been achieved” and classifies the anti-beggary laws as a lifeless enactment.
Subsequent to an oral judgement in Manjula Sen v. Superintendent Beggars’ Residence, the court docket constituted a committee (p.35) to check the BPBA. The committee mentioned with consultants on the legislation and analysed the provisions of different international locations throughout their job. Their ultimate report unanimously concluded that the act is wholly outdated and must be abolished with out additional delay. They famous that those that are compelled to beg require the protecting contact of the legislation, not harsh penalisation. It’s pertinent to notice that the report had categorized the legislation as ‘outdated’ all the way in which again in 1990. Due to this fact, there may be undoubtedly no welfare goal achieved by the state’s purported efforts that proceed right this moment.
On the third prong, the administration appears to have conflated systemic social points with prison points and resorted to harsh prison sanctions with out sufficient rehabilitative amenities. The modus operandi of the state, as seen within the excessively large definition given to who a beggar is, appears to oscillate in direction of these legal guidelines being a type of performative governance as a substitute of efficient governance, as they’re unduly geared toward aims of invisibility and exclusion moderately than rehabilitation and justice. Herein, one begins to wonder if the state is utilizing false claims of harm and welfare to cover the issue as a substitute of fixing it, significantly in city areas.
This argument is substantiated by the all-encompassing scope given to anti-beggary legislations that enables for any particular person who shouldn’t be perceived to be of a minimal financial class to be declared a beggar and thereby excluded them from public locations. As proven within the J&Okay Act, this unmistakably elitist strategy fails to differentiate between beggars and people making an attempt to make a residing. Additional, a PIL filed in 2018 towards an order detaining ‘beggars’ just lately discovered that youngsters and senior residents have been fraudulently saved at beggars’ properties and detained on the pretext that their Aadhar playing cards have been being made for them. Additional, a number of people who have been employed as home assist have been additionally illegally detained. Thus, the lens of elitism is patently seen within the state’s enforcement of such provisions in direction of the furtherance of hasty makes an attempt to marginalise and push subalterns to invisibility.
The exclusion of sure people and their categorisation as much less deserving of human rights is a manifestation of societal inequalities and structural violence. As argued by Foucault, disciplinary energy operates subtly and systematically by shaping behaviour via surveillance, categorisation, and institutional management. Within the current situation, beggars are seen as deviants who should conform to the societal ultimate of a ‘good citizen’. That is mitigated by workouts corresponding to extended detention and disciplining. As evinced in part 19 of the BPBA, individuals detained in such establishments could also be disciplined by the imposition of handbook labour and could also be awarded punishment for any breach of the foundations. It’s pertinent to notice herein that there isn’t a quantum of punishment prescribed, and it appears to have been left to the whims of the administration.
Worldwide selections additionally militate towards criminalisation, with the European Courtroom of Human Rights having completed so twice. Indian anti-beggary legislations additionally lie towards Article 23(1) of the Common Declaration of Human Rights and Article 6(1) of the Worldwide Covenant on Financial, Social and Cultural Rights, which explicitly recognise the fitting to work and the autonomy to decide on the form of work. It is because, below such laws, plainly the fitting to work is granted provided that the work is deemed ‘acceptable’. Moreover, the query of whether or not begging is a prison offence arose within the Lăcătuş v. Switzerland judgement whereby the ECHR held {that a} ban on begging would quantity to a violation of the fitting to household and personal life enshrined in article 8 of the European Conference of Human Rights.
The current makes an attempt to criminalise beggary appear to stem from an exclusionist perspective, moderately than falling below the ambit of a welfare state making an attempt to rehabilitate a piece of its inhabitants. Additional, it consistently reinforces the notion that being poor inherently predisposes you to a lifetime of deviant and prison exercise, which then results in a vicious cycle (p.25) of the underprivileged being pressured into a lifetime of vagrancy. Due to this fact, it’s neither an sufficient mechanism nor a suitable one for addressing this problem, and policymakers should rethink the archaic strategy.
Conclusion
The criminalisation of begging below Bhopal’s coverage displays a broader pattern in India’s authorized framework, one which prioritises city aesthetics and public order over elementary rights and socio-economic realities. It should be reiterated that these legal guidelines have been premised on a colonial relic supposed for sophistication segregation. But, Indians nonetheless allow these legal guidelines, perpetuating the identical concepts of superiority. Whereas proponents argue that such legal guidelines curb organised begging and keep public areas, they fail to account for the systemic elements that push people into destitution. The judiciary has beforehand emphasised that poverty shouldn’t be criminalised, but actions like these proceed.
India already has a blueprint for a much more humane strategy within the Individuals in Destitution (Safety, Care and Rehabilitation) Mannequin Invoice of 2016. It outlines a state Act that’s geared toward offering safety and administering rehabilitation to the destitute and susceptible sections of society. It makes an attempt to create rehabilitation centres that present care, vocational coaching, talent growth, and different crucial providers to destitute individuals. As a step ahead, the invoice additionally has a provision for offering counselling providers to such individuals on the Rehabilitation Centre. Nevertheless, the invoice has not been carried out in any state.
The legislation must be a software for empowerment, not exclusion, and till this shift happens, such insurance policies will stay mere devices of social management masquerading as reform.
*Tanya Sara George is a Third-year B.A.LL.B (Hons) pupil at Maharashtra Nationwide Regulation College, Mumbai.
Tanya Sara George*
Supply: LexLife India
The article critiques India’s anti-beggary legal guidelines, arguing that the prevailing authorized framework displays a punitive legacy of colonial governance repurposed for contemporary exclusionary ends. The evaluation reveals how these statutes systematically conflate poverty with criminality, functioning primarily as devices of exclusion and social management, reinforcing city elitism, whereas granting unchecked discretion to state actors and undermining elementary rights. Using the hurt and welfare theories of criminalisation, the article appraises the normative legitimacy of penalising destitution and urges a elementary reorientation of state coverage in direction of rights-based,
rehabilitative frameworks rooted in dignity and constitutional morality.
Introduction
“The separation between existential realities and the rhetoric of socialism indulged in by the wielders of energy within the authorities can’t be extra profound.”
– Anand Chakravarti
Begging is usually resorted to by marginalized and susceptible members of society. The federal government phrases beggary as “probably the most excessive type of poverty” and has said that long-term options are a necessity to higher deal with begging. Regardless of this understanding, the nation has usually taken a unipolar view in addressing beggary by constantly resorting to anti-beggary statutes that criminalise vagrancy. Notably, a complete of twenty-two states and Union Territories have aligned with this strategy.
Within the first two months of 2025, Indore and Bhopal have criminalised the giving of alms to beggars inside their boundaries below Part 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (‘BNSS’), which permits orders to be issued in pressing circumstances of nuisance or apprehended hazard. These legal guidelines are usually used to ‘cleanse’ India’s look throughout G20 summits. Whereas these options would possibly supply non permanent recourse, they blatantly fail to deal with the foundation causes of the issue and inadvertently lead to a vicious cycle resulting in extra vagrancy.
The current article elaborates on and critiques anti-beggary laws in India. Firstly, the creator explains the legal guidelines on criminalizing vagrancy in India and its salient options. Secondly, the creator explores judicial selections on the authorized stance on beggary. Thirdly, the creator poses a three-pronged critique of the current authorized stance, analysing the failings within the present strategy whereas situating this inside theories of prison legislation. The critique first targets the misuse of those provisions and the heightened scope for undue discretionary energy. Secondly, the creator analyses the foundations behind these theories and argues that they fulfil no theoretical goal utilizing the hurt idea and the welfare idea of criminalisation. Thirdly, the creator argues that the current modus, stemming from an elitist perspective, is focused at exclusion, invisibility and concrete aesthetics moderately than public curiosity or welfare.
The Authorized Stance on Beggary
The roots of the current authorized strategy in criminalising beggary are colonial. It developed from the European Vagrancy Act of 1869, which was formulated with the intent to protect the racial superiority of the British as towards their unemployed Indian counterparts who have been begging for alms. Beneath Part 109 of the Code of Prison Process, any Justice of the Peace was empowered to ask any particular person with none “ostensible technique of subsistence, or who can not give a passable account of himself” to execute a bond, with sureties, for good behaviour as much as one yr. As famous (p.6) by Radhika Singh, these provisions oft allowed magistrates to proceed below the garb of selective criminalisation. They might deduce prison behaviour from social antecedents alone, via unchecked govt discretion (p.19) via the Vagrancy Act. This allowed the British to detain undesirable sections of society, as such people didn’t possess the sources to execute a bond and have been pushed right into a class of malefactors.
Beneath Indore’s new legislation, it’s not merely vagrancy that’s criminalised; however anybody who encourages beggary by providing alms would even be liable to prison motion towards them. The administration has categorized giving alms to beggars as a ‘sin’ and requested individuals to not give. This initiative, in idea, aligns with a coverage of the Union Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment whereby they purpose to make cities within the nation ‘beggar-free’. Nevertheless, it’s pertinent to notice that the Help for Marginalised People for Livelihood and Enterprise (‘SMILE’) initiative’s goal is to succeed in a situation of being beggar-free by providing sufficient and long-term options, which inter alia embrace rehabilitative measures and skill-building applications. Equally, Bhopal has taken the identical strategy and criminalised the providing of alms to beggars. The district has additionally banned the acquisition of any items from beggars. Each these legal guidelines penalise individuals below Part 223 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, i.e., disobeying an order introduced by a public servant, in the event that they act in contravention of the order.
The Bombay Prevention of Beggary Act of 1959 (‘BPBA’) was the primary laws explicitly banning begging. This legislation was prolonged to Delhi in 1960. Authorized support didn’t exist (p.282) for such people till the yr 2000. These legal guidelines have been geared toward invisibility and exclusion. For instance, Part 10 provides a chief commissioner powers to order the detention of “incurably helpless beggars”. This enables him to indefinitely detain people he deems to be ‘incurably helpless.’ Mumbai continues to deal with these detention amenities, with the police allowed to detain any particular person they assume has no technique of sustenance.
Part 9 of the Bombay Act permits for the court docket to order the detention of the dependant particular person of the accused, once more left to the discretion of the authorities. It’s pertinent to notice that these legal guidelines don’t present rehabilitative amenities or academic or vocational coaching to assist beggars reintegrate as members of society. Additional, Part 19 imposes handbook labour upon these detainees with no recognition or remuneration in return. Sarcastically, even in prison prisons, being paid to work is a elementary (p.14) proper.
Additional, the act embodies the widest interpretation potential in defining a beggar. This interpretation can be adopted by the Jammu And Kashmir Prevention Of Beggary Act of 1960. As per Part 2(a) of the act, a beggar is any one that is:
- Soliciting or receiving alms in a public place, whether or not or not below any pretence corresponding to singing, dancing, fortune telling, performing, or providing any article on the market;
- getting into on any premises for the aim of soliciting or receiving alms;
- exposing or exhibiting, with the item of acquiring or extorting alms, any sore, wound, damage, deformity, or illness, whether or not of a human being or animal;
- having no seen technique of subsistence and, wandering about or remaining in any public place in such situation or method, as makes it doubtless that the particular person doing so exists by soliciting or receiving alms
This enables for an excessively large interpretation of who a beggar is. It grants discretion to authorities to utilise the legislation as they see match towards susceptible sections of society. As can be mentioned in additional sections, these provisions are sometimes utilized in misguided makes an attempt to scrub the streets of anybody in poverty, not simply ‘beggars’. This has resulted in a paradox whereby beggars are criminalised for being in abject poverty, whereas additionally putting the claws of the legislation upon them in the event that they try to maneuver themselves out of poverty by partaking in accessible self-employment on the road.
A Jurisprudential Lens
A single choose of the Delhi HC in Ram Lakhan v State laid the premise of choices militating towards anti-beggary laws within the nation. The choice arose from a revision petition whereby the choose rightfully noticed the abominable regard for human rights given to beggars in India. The Justice of the Peace, within the earlier choice, had repeatedly described the beggar as “elevating his entrance paws” as a substitute of utilizing the fitting terminology, displaying a scant regard for beggars within the nation. Additional, the Social Investigation Report had noticed (p.38) that the accused was a ordinary beggar, a declare he was not even allowed to contest. Though Justice Ahmed couldn’t delve into the constitutionality of the legislation, he extensively detailed how these legal guidelines are violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Indian Structure.
In 2018, a bench consisting of Justices Gita Mittal and Hari Shankar in Harsh Mander v Union of India declared sure sections of the anti-beggary legislation in Delhi unconstitutional. The court docket, nonetheless, upheld sure sections, corresponding to part 11, which penalises individuals who make use of beggars. Arguably, this part relies on the welfare precept and has an inexpensive nexus to the prevention of exploitation. Herein, it may be emphatically noticed that the court docket used humanitarian rules to solely prohibit acts that have been presumptivelyharmful moderately than to penalize people for circumstances they’re born into. As famous within the choice, the court docket primarily discovered violations of Article 14 and Article 21. As held within the majority opinion in Perka v. The Queen, necessity is classed as a situation whereby the wrongful act was unavoidable, and it is just if the particular person has a authorized means out that the choice to disobey is a voluntary one. Within the on the spot case, the court docket famous that begging shouldn’t be a aware choice, however people are pushed to it by necessity attributable to extraneous elements, and thereby, arresting them for one thing they can not management could be wholly violative of Article 21.
Article 14 requires that people should be handled equally below the legislation. A crucial corollary to that is that unequal people should be handled unequally. Thus, the legislation should have some intelligible differentia to make sure that the legal guidelines are carried out towards individuals deserving of the identical, and never others. Within the on the spot case, the court docket rightly famous that the Act grossly fails to distinguish between people who’re making an attempt to make a residing by avenue merchandising or avenue performances, in distinction to people begging for alms, thereby turning into violative of Article 14.
In 2019, the J&Okay HC in Suhail Rashid Bhat v State of Jammu & Kashmir went a step additional and held that the anti-beggary legislation enacted within the state is extremely vires the structure and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(a) and 21. The rationale of the court docket was just like the strategy taken within the Harsh Mander choice. The court docket noticed that criminalizing beggary could be violative of Article 19(1)(a). Begging is a type of communication within the sense that beggars, by their appearances, actions or pleas, enchantment to people for his or her assist from abject poverty.
The classification of begging below Article 19(1)(a) could be clarified by the Spence Check (p. 418) drawn from American jurisprudence. The take a look at holds {that a} sure motion falls below free speech if, firstly, the particular person performing the impugned exercise did it with an intention to speak a ‘particularised message’ and secondly, whether or not the exercise was such that the observer would possibly understand it to fall throughout the boundaries of ‘speech’ below First Modification. Contemplating the primary prong, begging includes the beggar displaying his depressing plight via phrases or actions and requesting alms by phrases (spoken or written) or actions. Due to this fact, it’s supposed to tell somebody of their plight. Secondly, as held in Craig Profit v. Metropolis of Cambridge & Others, begging is categorised as speech below the First Modification. Due to this fact, begging is a way of expressing oneself and qualifies for defense below Artwork. 19(1)(a).
The legality of anti-beggary laws got here into query once more in 2021. Amidst COVID-19, a PIL was filed within the Supreme Courtroom to limit begging in public locations and streets. The Courtroom refused to allow a ban on begging in public areas, noting that individuals are compelled to beg because of a scarcity of autonomy and said that banning their supply of sustenance with out addressing the root trigger of the problem could be “an elitist view”. Quite, the court docket questioned the state on the prayer concerning the rehabilitation and vaccination of beggars and vagabonds, and on offering them with shelter and meals amid the pandemic.
Lately, a PIL was filed by Kush Kalra, a former member of the Nationwide Human Rights Fee, within the Punjab and Haryana HC, labelling anti-begging laws as “antithetical to the thought of freedom of speech and expression assured below Article 19(1)”. The PIL broadly argued that there’s an onus on the state to make sure that people are assured a minimal stage of a dignified life, and so they can not violate this by equating beggary to a prison offence. The PIL was set to be heard in March 2025.
A Critique of the Regulation
To elaborate on the criticisms of the authorized stance, the creator posits three main considerations. Firstly, she argues that the legislation is being misused to grant an unchecked quantity of discretion, with out recourse for detained people. Secondly, she argues that the theories of criminalisation don’t help criminalising begging, which calls into query the state’s bona fides in doing the identical. Thirdly, the creator criticizes the laws by arguing that these legal guidelines are inherently made to realize aims of invisibility, exclusion and ‘city aesthetics’ moderately than rehabilitation or public curiosity.
Firstly, as established earlier, anti-beggary legal guidelines usually violate a plethora of elementary rights. Present literature (p.285) signifies that quite a few individuals who’ve been detained and punished by these legal guidelines have been each day labourers who had beforehand by no means resorted to begging however have been merely current in public areas. Additional, there’s a important quantity of discretion granted to law enforcement officials below these acts to select anybody off the streets, and there was proof indicating (p.36) that it might have been misused. Judges would ship (p.38) beggars to detention amenities by merely glancing at their faces with out even making an attempt to ascertain whether or not they, the truth is, had a way of survival. Additional, as famous within the 223rd Regulation Fee report, these amenities deprive people of important rights corresponding to sufficient meals, clear water, correct shelter, and private hygiene.
Secondly, the hurt precept (p.59) is a seminal precept in deciding whether or not a sure act should be criminalised. It holds that an motion could also be criminalised if it causes hurt to a different particular person. It permits state infringement on a specific side of life, provided that hurt is brought on to others. It’s pertinent to situate this idea within the context of anti-beggary legislation because it exhibits how the legislation shouldn’t be used to fulfil its goal of public security. Begging, if completed peacefully, outwardly harms nobody. Herein, the legislators have fallaciously criminalised a helpless state of being, moderately than an act supposed to or really leading to hurt. This begs the query, what’s the state actually criminalising, poverty or beggary?
Such criminalisation additionally can’t be justified below the welfare idea (p.58). The welfare idea argues that the state is justified in pursuing a sure goal if it holds an overarching constructive impact on public welfare. Nevertheless, criminalising begging, with no different technique of assist, has not resulted in a discount in begging, as said within the UP Regulation Fee report in addition to the 2011 Census, which discovered that there have been 4,13,670 within the nation on the time.The UP report clearly notes that “the aim of the act has not been achieved” and classifies the anti-beggary laws as a lifeless enactment.
Subsequent to an oral judgement in Manjula Sen v. Superintendent Beggars’ Residence, the court docket constituted a committee (p.35) to check the BPBA. The committee mentioned with consultants on the legislation and analysed the provisions of different international locations throughout their job. Their ultimate report unanimously concluded that the act is wholly outdated and must be abolished with out additional delay. They famous that those that are compelled to beg require the protecting contact of the legislation, not harsh penalisation. It’s pertinent to notice that the report had categorized the legislation as ‘outdated’ all the way in which again in 1990. Due to this fact, there may be undoubtedly no welfare goal achieved by the state’s purported efforts that proceed right this moment.
On the third prong, the administration appears to have conflated systemic social points with prison points and resorted to harsh prison sanctions with out sufficient rehabilitative amenities. The modus operandi of the state, as seen within the excessively large definition given to who a beggar is, appears to oscillate in direction of these legal guidelines being a type of performative governance as a substitute of efficient governance, as they’re unduly geared toward aims of invisibility and exclusion moderately than rehabilitation and justice. Herein, one begins to wonder if the state is utilizing false claims of harm and welfare to cover the issue as a substitute of fixing it, significantly in city areas.
This argument is substantiated by the all-encompassing scope given to anti-beggary legislations that enables for any particular person who shouldn’t be perceived to be of a minimal financial class to be declared a beggar and thereby excluded them from public locations. As proven within the J&Okay Act, this unmistakably elitist strategy fails to differentiate between beggars and people making an attempt to make a residing. Additional, a PIL filed in 2018 towards an order detaining ‘beggars’ just lately discovered that youngsters and senior residents have been fraudulently saved at beggars’ properties and detained on the pretext that their Aadhar playing cards have been being made for them. Additional, a number of people who have been employed as home assist have been additionally illegally detained. Thus, the lens of elitism is patently seen within the state’s enforcement of such provisions in direction of the furtherance of hasty makes an attempt to marginalise and push subalterns to invisibility.
The exclusion of sure people and their categorisation as much less deserving of human rights is a manifestation of societal inequalities and structural violence. As argued by Foucault, disciplinary energy operates subtly and systematically by shaping behaviour via surveillance, categorisation, and institutional management. Within the current situation, beggars are seen as deviants who should conform to the societal ultimate of a ‘good citizen’. That is mitigated by workouts corresponding to extended detention and disciplining. As evinced in part 19 of the BPBA, individuals detained in such establishments could also be disciplined by the imposition of handbook labour and could also be awarded punishment for any breach of the foundations. It’s pertinent to notice herein that there isn’t a quantum of punishment prescribed, and it appears to have been left to the whims of the administration.
Worldwide selections additionally militate towards criminalisation, with the European Courtroom of Human Rights having completed so twice. Indian anti-beggary legislations additionally lie towards Article 23(1) of the Common Declaration of Human Rights and Article 6(1) of the Worldwide Covenant on Financial, Social and Cultural Rights, which explicitly recognise the fitting to work and the autonomy to decide on the form of work. It is because, below such laws, plainly the fitting to work is granted provided that the work is deemed ‘acceptable’. Moreover, the query of whether or not begging is a prison offence arose within the Lăcătuş v. Switzerland judgement whereby the ECHR held {that a} ban on begging would quantity to a violation of the fitting to household and personal life enshrined in article 8 of the European Conference of Human Rights.
The current makes an attempt to criminalise beggary appear to stem from an exclusionist perspective, moderately than falling below the ambit of a welfare state making an attempt to rehabilitate a piece of its inhabitants. Additional, it consistently reinforces the notion that being poor inherently predisposes you to a lifetime of deviant and prison exercise, which then results in a vicious cycle (p.25) of the underprivileged being pressured into a lifetime of vagrancy. Due to this fact, it’s neither an sufficient mechanism nor a suitable one for addressing this problem, and policymakers should rethink the archaic strategy.
Conclusion
The criminalisation of begging below Bhopal’s coverage displays a broader pattern in India’s authorized framework, one which prioritises city aesthetics and public order over elementary rights and socio-economic realities. It should be reiterated that these legal guidelines have been premised on a colonial relic supposed for sophistication segregation. But, Indians nonetheless allow these legal guidelines, perpetuating the identical concepts of superiority. Whereas proponents argue that such legal guidelines curb organised begging and keep public areas, they fail to account for the systemic elements that push people into destitution. The judiciary has beforehand emphasised that poverty shouldn’t be criminalised, but actions like these proceed.
India already has a blueprint for a much more humane strategy within the Individuals in Destitution (Safety, Care and Rehabilitation) Mannequin Invoice of 2016. It outlines a state Act that’s geared toward offering safety and administering rehabilitation to the destitute and susceptible sections of society. It makes an attempt to create rehabilitation centres that present care, vocational coaching, talent growth, and different crucial providers to destitute individuals. As a step ahead, the invoice additionally has a provision for offering counselling providers to such individuals on the Rehabilitation Centre. Nevertheless, the invoice has not been carried out in any state.
The legislation must be a software for empowerment, not exclusion, and till this shift happens, such insurance policies will stay mere devices of social management masquerading as reform.
*Tanya Sara George is a Third-year B.A.LL.B (Hons) pupil at Maharashtra Nationwide Regulation College, Mumbai.
