Author: Sanjana Srivastav, a student at Maharaja Agrasen Institute of Management Studies
To the point-
Begging is not just an act of soliciting money, food, or other assistance from strangers in public spaces due to one’s poverty or disability or any vulnerability; it is rather a socio-economic act which is deeply rooted in inequality, unemployment, disability, exclusion, and destitution. Criminalisation of begging refers to the laws, statutes, or policies that penalise individuals for soliciting alms in public places, and they are often treated as offenders rather than victims. A large population of beggars is disabled, elderly, or mentally ill, for whom begging is a survival mechanism in the absence of welfare support. The primary issue lies in punishing poverty rather than addressing its root causes, thereby violating basic human dignity.
Begging laws stem from colonial control mechanisms designed to sanitise urban spaces, under British rule, and classify the poor as “dangerous classes.” Politicians and urban planners often justify these anti-begging laws to make cities and states “world-class,” ignoring the need for economic development and thus prioritising aesthetics over equality. Such laws serve the interests of elite urban classes, who then find beggars a nuisance or an ‘eye-sore’ to them and their state. The state should instead focus on removal rather than rehabilitation. Criminalisation thus becomes a tool for social cleansing, allowing state agencies to remove inconvenient populations from gentrified areas.
Most Indian states use the Bombay Prevention of Begging Act, 1959, to criminalise begging, where the law defines “beggar” broadly, even including performing artists, street musicians, or those soliciting alms in non-coercive ways, making it a punishable offence with imprisonment. In the absence of state social security, begging becomes a form of informal negotiation where the poor are caught in a legal paradox: they are punished for being visible and marginalised when they are invisible. These laws, therefore, reinforce structural stigmas that the poor are inherently criminal or morally suspect.
Use of legal jargon:
The Bombay Prevention of Begging Act, 1959, was enacted by the Bombay State legislature before the formation of Maharashtra and Gujarat in 1960, with its primary purpose to criminalise begging and remove beggars from public spaces under the guise of social rehabilitation. This act defined “begging” broadly. This act also authorises the police to arrest without a warrant anyone suspected of begging, it also provides for the institutionalisation of beggars in “certifies institutions” for up to 10 years.
This act has been heavily criticised for violating,
- Article 14 – which ensures equality before the law and gives equal protection of laws within the territory of India.
- Article 19(1)(d) – Guarantees all its citizens the right to move freely throughout the territory of India.
- Article 21 – Protects the right to life and personal liberty of every person, except according to procedure established by law.
The proof:
The Bombay Prevention of Begging Act, 1959, and similar state laws allow arbitrary arrests of beggars without a warrant, which violates due process and disproportionately targets the homeless, disabled, elderly, and unemployed. Begging laws criminalise poverty, and not conduct; they punish people who exist without resources, violating Article 14 (equality), Article 19(1)(d) (freedom of movement), and Article 21 (right to life and dignity).
Begging bans are enforced most rigorously before an international event, e.g., Delhi before G20 preparations or the Commonwealth Games (2010), by suggesting a political motive to hide poverty rather than address it. Before the Commonwealth Games in October 2010, the Delhi Government launched a large-scale anti-begging drive, during which hundreds of beggars were detained under the Bombay Prevention of Begging Act, 1959, also the Social Welfare Department and police removed beggars from near the stadiums, metro stations and tourists routes, the beggars and many were forcibly instituionalised in “beggar homes” (shelter homes under custodial regimes). Before the G20 Leaders’ Summit in September 2023, the Delhi Police and Municipal Corporation of Delhi initiated a massive urban clean-up drive, which included removing beggars and street dwellers from areas such as Connaught Place, Rajpath, and airport routes. In figures, over 2,000 homeless individuals were rounded up, with many being allegedly displaced or temporarily detained.
Abstract:
India, as a country, has a significant percentage of its population living as beggars. The act of begging is often viewed as undesirable and is rooted in economic deprivation and systemic neglect. Instead of addressing the causes, the Indian laws and the Indian government often criminalise beggars using vague definitions and outdated colonial-era statutes. This criminalisation serves more to sanitise public places for urban elites than to protect public order. These laws and regulations led to ignorance of such a population and violation of their rights.
Begging laws presume criminal intent where none exists. Disabled and elderly people tend to survive by begging due to being unable and unfit to work, thereby violating fundamental rights guaranteed to individuals by the constitution. Begging is often not a choice for most but a condition imposed by the absence of state support, especially for the disabled, elderly, unemployed, and mentally ill.
Thus, the criminalisation of begging reflects a larger project of invisibilizing poverty, rather than eradicating it. These laws, however, violate the rights that are meant to protect individuals. These laws dont provide the beggars with a chance to uplift, and they eventually become an “eye-sore” or “pollution” to the state.
Case Laws:
Harsh Mander v. Union of India (2018)
A petition was filed under Article 226 (Delhi High Court) of the Constitution by Harsh Mander, who challenged the constitutionality of the Bombay Prevention of Begging Act, 1959, as extended to Delhi. The act allowed for the arrest and detention of persons found begging in public without a warrant and placed them in beggar homes for up to 10 years. The petitioner argues that the Act criminalizes poverty, thereby violating constitutional guarantees. The Court held that the act criminalising begging was unconstitutional as it violated Article 14 (equality), Article 19(1)(d) (freedom of movement), and Article 21 (right to life and dignity), it also struck down section 4 to 11 and 18 of the Act, observing that begging is a manifestation of systematic failure, and not a crime.
Ram Lakhan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2016)
The petitioner, Ram Lakhan, was detained under the U.P. Prevention of Begging Act, without sufficient proof of his engaging in begging or public nuisance. The arrest was made without legal aid, and the person was not produced before a magistrate within a reasonable time. The court held that such arrests are arbitrary, discriminatory, and violate the principles of natural justice. The court also emphasised the fact that poverty is not a crime, and preventive detention laws should not be misused to remove the poor from public spaces.
Conclusion:
The criminalisation of begging reflects a moral and legal failure of the Indian State to uphold constitutional values. It morally neglects the sector of its population that is bound to begging and legally fails to safeguard their constitutional rights. It seems more straightforward for the state to punish the visible poor than to reform the socio-economic conditions that create them.
The state should adopt a rights-based approach to addressing poverty rather than relying on incarceration. It should include targeted welfare, employment schemes, healthcare, and mental health services.
Thus, A comprehensive repeal of anti-begging laws and replacement with social justice legislation is the need of the hour. The state should focus on equipping the poor individuals with skills and livelihood opportunities, rather than criminalizing them for begging, which may be for their survival.
FAQs:
Q1. Is begging a crime in India?
A: Yes. In India, many states are under the Bombay Prevention of Begging Act, 1959. criminalise begging, allowing authorities to arrest and detain beggars, or their state variants, who engage in begging. However, in 2018, the Delhi High Court struck down the criminalization provisions in its territory; however, other states, such as Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal, still do.
Q2. What is the rationale behind anti-begging laws?
A: Such anti-begging laws were initially intended to prevent public nuisance and ensure urban cleanliness, as well as to rehabilitate beggars. However, in practice, they have been mainly used to remove the poor from public view, especially during events or tourism seasons.
Q3. Can Police arrest someone just for begging?
A: Yes, in states where begging laws exist, police can arrest someone just for praying. However, such arrests are increasingly being challenged as they violate the fundamental rights outlined in Article 14, Article 19(1)(d), and Article 21.
Q4. Are there any rehabilitation schemes for beggars?
A: Yes, few states have “beggar homes” or “shelters”, which are often underfunded and function more like detention centers than rehabilitative spaces.
Q5. What’s the difference between decriminalising and legalising begging?
A: Decriminalising begging means not punishing begging as a crime, and legalising begging means formally allowing and regulating the act of begging. The focus is usually on decriminalisation with dignity-based alternatives.
Q6. Has the Supreme Court taken any stand on this?
A: No, the Supreme Court hasn’t directly struck down the anti-begging laws, but it has upheld the right to life and dignity in several related cases, forming the basis for legal challenges.
Q7. Is poverty itself illegal under these laws?
A: No, but the effect of poverty under such a law is treated like a criminal offence, especially when visible in public spaces.
Q8. What are the global human rights standards on this issue?
A: The International human rights law (e.g., ICCPR, ICESCR) recognises the right to dignity, livelihood, and protection from arbitrary detention. Criminalising begging violates several of these norms.
Q9. How do these laws affect marginalised communities?
A: Most arrested under anti-begging laws are dalits, disabled persons, the elderly, mentally ill, or migrants; therefore, these laws disproportionately affect the marginalised communities, who are further marginalised by a lack of access to legal aid and social services.
