Criminalising poverty: India must rethink anti-begging laws

Recently, the Bhopal district administration announced a ban on begging, offering alms and buying goods from beggars in the Madhya Pradesh capital. This move follows a similar directive issued in Indore a month earlier. The Bhopal District Collector enforced the ban on by invoking Section 163(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The order further specified that any violations of these rules would lead to prosecution under BNSS Section 223.

The order reverberates India’s colonial legacy of punishing the oppressed sections of Indian society. Through the Anti-Begging and the Criminal Tribes Act, the colonisers punished the poor for being poor after making them poor. Unfortunately, even after India’s independence, the law was retained by states. According to PIB, there are 20 states and 2 union territories with anti-beggary laws in place. The Bombay Prevention of Begging Act, 1959 is the most prominent of these, as it formed the template for anti-begging laws in several other states. A lot of these laws were recently used to ‘cleanse’ India's appearance during the G-20 Summit.

It is one thing to have these laws in the first place and another to effectively fail to create a working definition of ‘begging’. Apart from beggars, persons giving them alms have also been arrested under these laws. A man in Indore was booked recently for giving small change to a beggar near a temple.

In 2018, the Delhi High Court declared certain sections of the Bombay Prevention of Begging Act, 1959 (which the NCT Delhi adopted) unconstitutional in the case of Harsh Mander v. Union of India, effectively decriminalising begging, becoming the first to do so in the country.

“People do not beg on the streets out of choice, but out of necessity. For many, begging is a last resort for survival, with no alternative means to sustain themselves. It is the government's responsibility to provide social security and ensure basic amenities for all citizens. The very presence of beggars highlights the state’s failure to meet these obligations,” observed the High Court bench of then Acting Chief Justice Gita Mittal and Justice C Hari Shankar. 

However, the Court upheld certain ancillary provisions where begging remains an offence, such as Section 11, which penalises those who employ or coerce others into begging.

Additionally, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court struck down the erstwhile state’s anti-begging law as well. The Court noted that beggars should not be treated as threats to public order. Rather, their begging must be seen as a sign of abject poverty that they were subjected to. The Court opined that it is the failure of the state to ensure to its citizens access to the most basic of necessities. Furthermore, the Court established that begging was protected under Article 19(1)(a) as a peaceful method of communicating their situation and seeking assistance. It said that the law did not criminalise begging, but criminalised poverty itself.

Despite the widespread presence of regressive anti-begging laws, the Rajasthan model stands out as a beacon of hope, offering a forward-thinking alternative.

This article argues in favour of adopting the Rajasthan model pan India and argues that the Bombay Prevention of Begging Act adopts a punitive approach by criminalising begging, treating it as an offense warranting detention and punishment. In stark contrast, the Rajasthan Rehabilitation of Beggars or Indigents Act, 2012 decriminalises begging entirely, shifting the focus towards rehabilitation and the reintegration of beggars into mainstream society. Rather than viewing beggars as criminals, the Rajasthan law recognises them as individuals in need of support and assistance.

While the Bombay Act offers little to no provision for helping beggars rebuild their lives, the Rajasthan law emphasises equipping them with skills and training to earn a livelihood. This approach fosters self-sufficiency and restores dignity, acknowledging that many are forced into begging due to circumstances beyond their control. The Rajasthan law further distinguishes itself by addressing the root causes of begging, such as poverty, unemployment and social marginalisation, rather than merely penalising the act itself.

The treatment of dependents under both laws highlights another significant difference. Section 9 of the Bombay Act allows for the detention of beggars' dependents as a punitive measure, compounding the hardship faced by vulnerable families. In contrast, the Rajasthan law adopts a more humane stance, providing care and protection to dependents without resorting to punitive actions. This reflects a broader understanding of the socio-economic realities that drive entire families into begging.

Furthermore, the enforcement mechanisms under the Bombay Act are notably harsh. Section 12 authorises regular police raids to “pick up” beggars, leading to widespread harassment and potential abuse. The Rajasthan law contains no such provisions, focusing instead on voluntary rehabilitation and support services. This not only respects the dignity of individuals but also prevents unnecessary criminalisation of poverty.

The punitive nature of the Bombay Act is further underscored by the detention and punishment period it prescribes. Section 6 allows for the detention of beggars for up to three years, treating them akin to criminals. In contrast, the Rajasthan law eliminates detention and punishment altogether, prioritising support over sanctions. This rehabilitative model is more consistent with modern human rights standards and social welfare principles.

Along similar lines, the Bihar government runs the Mukhyamantri Bhikshavriti Nivaran Yojana. The scheme is designed to restore dignity to the lives of beggars by offering them meaningful opportunities for self-sufficiency and social reintegration. Rather than merely focusing on rehabilitation, the scheme empowers beggars to become entrepreneurs or even publicity managers for government programs, giving them a chance to actively participate in the economy and civic life. Many individuals who were previously engaged in begging have expressed interest in starting small businesses, such as selling vegetables or opening retail shops. This initiative not only helps them achieve financial independence, but also fosters a sense of purpose and belonging within their communities.

So far, 18 beggars have been equipped with essential identification and financial tools to support their transition into self-reliance. They have been provided with Aadhaar cards and bank accounts, along with financial assistance of ₹10,000 each to kick start their own businesses.

The progressive provisions envisioned by these states need to be implemented pan India. Back in 2016, the Central government sought to introduce the Persons in Destitution (Protection, Care and Rehabilitation) Model Bill.

It was proposed via the Bill that states and union territories adopt the model Bill, allowing for modifications to suit local contexts. The provisions of this Bill emphasise a shift from punitive to rehabilitative measures, signaling a progressive approach to addressing begging. While begging has not been entirely decriminalised, penal action is reserved solely for repeat offenders, reflecting a more compassionate stance. Additionally, the Bill ensures that individuals dependent on beggars will not face detention, protecting vulnerable family members from unnecessary legal repercussions.

As part of this rehabilitative framework, the government is tasked with establishing centers that offer vocational training and counseling, equipping affected individuals with the skills and support needed to lead lives of dignity. The Bill also incorporates measures to prevent the misidentification of destitute individuals as beggars, ensuring that awareness programs educate both the public and law enforcement to avoid unnecessary harassment. Overall, the model Bill seeks to address the shortcomings of existing legislation, aligning domestic policies with international human rights norms and fostering a more humane and effective approach to tackling the issue of begging.

However, the said Bill was subsequently dropped for reasons not on record. In a reply to Varun Gandhi in 2021, the Union Minister of Social Justice and Empowerment noted that the Bill not being proposed for the states. For better living conditions of beggar in India, Persons in Destitution Bill, 2016, needs to see the light of the day.

Priyanshee Sharma is a LLM student at Maharashtra National Law University, Nagpur.