Shreya Sriram
ABSTRACT
The decriminalisation of begging in India has provoked great debates concerning the implications it carries for human rights, social justice, and the role of the state in addressing poverty. Historically, begging has been treated as a criminal offence, but that approach does not seek to address the systemic causes of poverty and marginalisation.
This paper outlines the historical and legal framework governing beggary, focusing on the Bombay Prevention of Begging Act, 1959, and the 2018 Delhi High Court judgment decriminalising begging. This paper also includes a rundown of the positions and measures adopted across various states in India and, finally, a discussion on alternative policies. The study will conclude with some recommendations for the way forward for the holistic rehabilitation of vulnerable people by addressing systemic causes of poverty.
Keywords
Decriminalisation, Begging, Human rights, Bombay Prevention of Begging Act, Social justice, Rehabilitation
INTRODUCTION
Begging is a prevalent social issue in India. It is an outward manifestation of the system’s failure to deal with deep-rooted poverty, unemployment, and social inequity. It is not just an issue of individual choice but a reflection of socioeconomic problems that leave many people with no alternative, such as the old, persons with disabilities, women, and children. So, they must resort to begging for survival.
Historically, begging has been viewed mainly through a criminal lens. Consequently, policy and legislation have approached begging as a public nuisance rather than addressing systemic changes to alleviate such destitution. The consequences are often leaning toward punitive responses rather than actual remedies.
The criminalisation of beggary in India found its genesis in colonial law, which provided for maintaining public order and ‘cleanliness’ in urban environments. Such a law, inherited after independence and moulded according to local conditions, sought to ‘eradicate’ the street visibility of poor people from city streets, being classist in the approach toward governance of urban space. One prominent enactment for the criminalisation of begging is the Bombay Prevention of Begging Act, 1959, which provided for arresting, detaining and institutionalising persons engaged in begging. The Act defined begging comprehensively, with cases of soliciting alms and where persons were deemed ‘likely’ to beg, and the latter provided opportunities for the drastic abuses of official power by the enforcement officers.
The criminalisation of poverty and homelessness has given rise to serious ethical and juridical debates. Compulsory punishments for the state of economic position do not solve the problem from its roots but enact further marginalisation and exclusion. These laws violate fundamental rights granted by the Indian Constitution, such as the right to equality under Article 14, the right to freedom under Article 19, and the right to life and dignity under Article 21. Of late, these issues have given rise to judicial actions that question the constitutionality and effectiveness of anti-begging laws.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This study uses a doctrinal approach to examine statutory provisions, judicial decisions, and secondary sources such as academic articles, policy reports, and global practices. It analyses primary sources, including judgments of the Supreme Court and High Courts, and the provisions of the Bombay Prevention of Begging Act and similar laws in other states. A comparative analysis with international best practices puts the policy recommendations in a broader context.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
HISTORICAL ANALYSIS
India’s anti-begging laws have their roots in colonial legislation that made apparent poverty a crime to maintain public order.
For example, the Bombay Prevention of Begging Act of 1959 treated begging as a public nuisance rather than the result of systemic poverty and unemployment. It allowed the authorities to detain the accused persons and put them in “beggar homes” for an extended period under very harsh and degrading conditions.
Legal scholars, such as Usha Ramanathan, in her seminal work Ostensible Poverty, Beggary and the Law (Economic & Political Weekly, 2008), argue that such laws were tools of marginalisation designed to remove the poor from public view in urban centres, reflecting the classist priorities of the colonial elite.
This framework did not help break the cycle of poverty and perpetuated social exclusion because it did not address the socioeconomic vulnerabilities that forced people to beg.
JUDICIAL DECISIONS
Indian courts have also played an important part in questioning the constitutionality and justness of anti-begging laws. An important case was Harsh Mander v. Union of India, where the Delhi High Court struck down several Bombay Prevention of Begging Act provisions. The judgment focused on how the criminalisation of begging violated Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution: for criminalising a person for being poor and for having no means to sustain himself.
Many scholars analysing the decision pointed to its progressive essence, bringing judicial reasoning into line with human dignity and social justice ideals. This case marked a significant shift from punitive actions toward rehabilitating vulnerable individuals and has since sparked discussions on similar reforms in other states.
REHABILITATION MEASURES
With most studies, including the one by the Centre for Equity Studies, recognising the ineffectiveness of punitive measures on begging and calling for a rights-based approach directed toward rehabilitation, it also brings into light the requirement felt by such people for skill development programs, social security schemes, and accessible healthcare to deal with the vulnerabilities driving people to beg.
Efforts at rehabilitation should not merely be directed at bringing begging out of public sight but should aim to empower people to live with dignity. Examples of this have been through integrated programs combining vocational training, housing, and psychological support.
For instance, Kerala’s Destitute Rehabilitation Programme extends education and skills that help these people to be integrated back into society. However, such programs are often irregular and in need of stronger coordination and investment for the benefits to be sustainable.
INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONS:
Around the globe, there is a significant force behind decriminalising homelessness and begging in confluence with human rights and social justice. Reports from the United Nations Human Rights Council and other international bodies emphasise addressing homelessness and poverty through systemic reform rather than punishment. Some such countries include Norway and Finland, where progressive policies provide housing-first approaches and a proper social welfare setup to fight causes of poverty and are aligned with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, especially Goal 1, No Poverty, and Goal 10, Reduced Inequalities.
This is part of a global trend emphasising the need to integrate marginalised people into society through extensive support systems rather than punishment. India can create policies based on human dignity, socioeconomic inclusion, and rights-based rehabilitation by taking inspiration from these global models.
HISTORY OF BEGGING AND THE BOMBAY PREVENTION OF BEGGING ACT, 1959
The primary purpose of introducing the Bombay Prevention of Begging Act of 1959 was to address prominent signs of poverty and begging in metropolitan areas, particularly in places like Mumbai. The legislation made begging illegal and defined it broadly to encompass anyone who solicited for alms, whether voluntarily or under duress.
According to Section 2 of the Act, a beggar begs or asks for alms in public spaces, such as streets, railway stations, and other communal areas. The law aimed to eliminate what was viewed as a public nuisance and begging while maintaining public order by removing visible signs of poverty from city streets.
At the time, the latter strategy mirrored the widespread belief that beggars were a social nuisance that could harm the moral fabric of city life. Begging has historically been a significant societal issue in India, intimately associated with socioeconomic backwardness.
Begging has existed in ancient and medieval Indian society and has even been connected to religious and cultural traditions.
As a part of their religious or spiritual practice, people would frequently beg for food or charity, which was considered an appropriate type of almsgiving. In Hinduism, for instance, some monks or ascetics survived by pleading for alms to symbolise their renunciation and humility. However, as India underwent socioeconomic changes, begging became more closely identified with poverty, destitution, and conditions of social marginalisation. By the time the British colonial administration took over, begging had come to be understood more as a problem of vagrancy and urban disorder—especially since colonial authorities wished to apply modern legislation to contain the swelling population of urban poor in cities such as Bombay (now Mumbai).
Many colonial perspectives on poverty and begging were carried over into post-independence India by establishing the Bombay Prevention of Begging Act. The Act classified all forms of solicitation as criminal behaviour, failing to distinguish between compelled begging and voluntary donation. As a result, authorities frequently misapplied the legislation, which led to the arbitrary arrest of beggars. Due process was not followed when many people were picked up and sent to reformatories or beggar homes, frequently resulting in rights breaches.
For example, the detention in these homes was often indefinite, lacking genuine rehabilitation or chances for reintegration into society. This created a scenario where already vulnerable individuals faced further marginalisation, with their basic human rights overlooked.
The constitutional implications of such laws became evident in the landmark case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, where the Supreme Court of India held that the fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, could not be arbitrarily violated. The judgment brought into focus the abuse of laws such as the Bombay Prevention of Begging Act, which violated the constitutional rights of beggars and vagrants. The Court held that no person could be deprived of his liberty without a fair trial, and arbitrary detention in beggar homes violated the right to personal freedom. This decision was a significant shift in the legal discourse on begging, pointing out the need for a more humane and rights-based approach to the subject.
IMPLICATIONS OF THE RECENT DELHI HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT
In the landmark judgment of Harsh Mander v. Union of India, the Delhi High Court struck down several provisions of the Bombay Prevention of Begging Act as applicable in Delhi, decriminalising begging in effect.
This decision was consistent with vital human rights principles that protect the dignity of all people, regardless of their socioeconomic background, and represented a substantial shift from earlier legal views that viewed begging as a criminal act. The Court found that the criminalisation of begging violated fundamental rights under the Constitution, notably under Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. The judgment emphasised that sending someone to prison for begging—usually caused by poverty and social exclusion—violated the right to live with dignity. The Court thus held that poverty is not a crime, and criminalising begging only punishes people for circumstances beyond their control, such as economic marginalisation and lack of means. The Court further held that the state must provide welfare and support to its vulnerable citizens, particularly those who are impoverished. It stated that the government is responsible for providing safety nets in the form of housing, health care, and employment opportunities for its impoverished citizens. Punitive tactics such as rendering begging a crime cannot address the shortage of these basic facilities. Instead, the Court called for a holistic approach that addresses the systemic causes of poverty, including inequality, lack of access to education, and inadequate social infrastructure. The judgment also highlighted that criminalising begging is discriminatory because it only serves to further marginalise the most vulnerable members of society, such as homeless people, persons with disabilities, and children.
The judgment is a significant shift in judicial thought that aligns with international human rights norms, urging the decriminalisation of begging and the evolution of systemic responses to poverty. This decision by the Delhi High Court reflects a growing realisation that punitive approaches toward poverty are ineffective and harmful. In contrast, approaches that put welfare and rehabilitation first offer a far more sustainable and humane way forward. Following the judgment, the Delhi government introduced welfare schemes like night shelters for the homeless and employment programs meant to generate economic opportunities for needy people. However, this rollout has faced several challenges, including a lack of infrastructure, irregular service delivery, and bureaucratic red tape. Many homeless persons are, therefore, still unable to access the help they need, and the effectiveness of the government’s programs is diluted by resource and coordination constraints. While the Harsh Mander judgment has opened the way for a begging policy that is more compassionate and rights-based, the challenges in its implementation bring into focus the need for continued commitment from the government and society at large. The judgment thus calls for a shift in social attitudes toward poverty—not a moral failing but a condition that calls for comprehensive social policies, support systems, and rehabilitation initiatives. Above all, this judgment is an important step toward a world in which people who beg are accorded dignity and respect, and it is a call for building a more inclusive society that addresses the root causes of begging rather than penalising its victims.
ORGANISED BEGGING IN INDIA
The issue of organised begging in India, commonly known as the “beggar mafia,” is a serious yet often neglected problem.
Forced begging is associated with a high percentage of human trafficking instances, according to data from the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), with many victims being trafficked specifically for this purpose in public areas. Such actions have been widely condemned and constitute a serious violation of human rights. The beggar mafia also capitalises on the money that comes with begging. The majority of the money that victims earn must be turned over, frequently leaving them in a perennially poor situation. The victims of this economic exploitation remain helpless against their abusers and have little chance of escaping their terrible circumstances.
The lack of prosecution against these criminal organisations exacerbates the issue by allowing the mafias to thrive in many regions of India.
The inadequate enforcement of the law and the lack of coordination between different law enforcement organisations are significant barriers to breaking up these criminal networks. Furthermore, victims frequently experience intimidation and fear of reprisals, which makes it challenging for them to come forward and disclose their abusers. The issue is made worse by the lack of support networks for these victims, which traps them in a vicious circle of exploitation. To effectively tackle the beggar mafia, there is a pressing need for more strict enforcement of anti-trafficking laws, such as the Trafficking of Persons (Prevention, Protection, and Rehabilitation) Act, 2018. This legislation aims to prevent trafficking and provides for the protection of victims.
STANCE OF VARIOUS STATES IN PREVENTION OF BEGGING
The approach of the various states in India toward the problem of begging has been either to criminalise or rehabilitate. For example, Maharashtra has retained vestiges of the Bombay Prevention of Begging Act, which criminalises begging and allows for the arrest of beggars.
The purpose of the legal system is to deter begging by imposing some sort of punishment on people who are caught begging. Instead of tackling the poverty and marginalisation that cause begging, this strategy criminalises the beggar, which has drawn criticism. In particular, the Delhi High Court’s 2017 ruling that questioned the Bombay Prevention of Begging Act’s constitutionality forced other states to reevaluate comparable laws. A broader discussion regarding the necessity of a more humane and restorative approach to the problem has been sparked by this ruling.
On the other hand, states like Kerala and Odisha have adopted a model that places more emphasis on rehabilitation. Kerala’s destitute rehabilitation project implements its vision by providing comprehensive assistance to beggars. The plan involves shelter, health care, occupational training, and guidance. This strategy goes beyond merely keeping beggars off the streets; it tries to integrate them into mainstream society while giving them better ways of living. It applies long-term solution-based thinking as opposed to the usual short-term punitive measures against poverty, disability, and conditions, leading people into social exclusion and thus begging.
Similarly, Odisha has emphasised rehabilitation by instituting programs aimed at restoring dignity to beggars and allowing them to lead independent lives. It includes vocational training, rehabilitation centres, and the reintegration of beggars back into their respective communities.
MEASURES TAKEN BY DIFFERENT STATES TO PREVENT BEGGING
Different states in India have adopted innovative and humane interventions to help their citizens break out of the vicious circle of begging while focusing on social welfare and empowerment. Driven by the state, these initiatives are meant not only to provide immediate relief but also to address the underlying causes that lead to begging, such as poverty, unemployment, and conditions of social exclusion.
The state government of Kerala has launched the Kudumbashree program, an all-inclusive program for poverty alleviation and empowerment of economically weaker sections, including beggars. Under this program, it provides microfinance facilities so that people can start small businesses and become self-sufficient. Apart from this, Kudumbashree imparted skill development programs and helped in the rehabilitation of beggars by bringing them into the mainstream, thus opening a way for them to get out of begging. In all these, the community-based solutions ensure that individuals receive not just financial support but also social inclusion and empowerment.
In Telangana, the GHMC has established various shelter homes providing temporary residential facilities for homeless people, including beggars. The shelter homes not only provide a safe place but also have in-house skill development programs to enable the residents to acquire employable skills. In this way, efforts are being made to rehabilitate the beggars by imparting skill-based training to earn their living through decent employment and reduce dependence on begging. These shelter homes also provide the basic amenities of food, health, and counselling to help people get back to everyday life and lead a life with dignity.
In Delhi, after a major ruling by the Delhi High Court in 2017, the state government has actively initiated pilot projects offering alternatives to begging. These projects include the creation of night shelters where homeless people can find a place to rest.
Rajasthan has combined employment schemes under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) with urban poverty alleviation programs, explicitly targeting beggars as part of a larger initiative to combat poverty and unemployment. By providing guaranteed work opportunities in areas like infrastructure development and community services, MGNREGA offers a stable income for vulnerable individuals, including beggars. This integration with urban poverty programs provides immediate assistance and creates pathways for individuals to establish a sustainable livelihood through employment.
These state-level initiatives represent a shift from punitive strategies to a more rehabilitative approach regarding begging, focusing on social welfare, skill development, and economic empowerment. The aim is to address the root causes of begging and equip individuals with the necessary tools and resources to break out of the cycle of poverty and dependency. Combining shelter, health care, skill training, and job opportunities under one umbrella, these programs epitomise a holistic approach to dealing with begging and homelessness in India.
CONCLUSION
Decriminalizing begging in India would be an important move toward a rights-based approach in dealing with poverty and conditions of social marginalization. For far too long, colonial laws, such as the Bombay Prevention of Begging Act, 1959, and other forms of authoritarian legislation, have institutionalized a punitive mindset towards very poor people. But several recent judicial decisions, such as the Delhi High Court judgment in Harsh Mander v. Union of India, have challenged such approaches by questioning the criminalization of poverty and pressing the State to adopt measures for welfare and rehabilitation.
The dominant response to begging in India has been varied across states, with some opting for punitive measures and others focusing on rehabilitation. While punitive measures like those in Maharashtra and some other states continue to criminalize begging, Kerala and Odisha provide models of rehabilitation. These states have implemented comprehensive programs that combine shelter, vocational training, and social integration to empower beggars, reduce dependence on alms, and restore dignity. Such holistic initiatives are in line with global best practices, where the focus is on addressing the root causes of poverty, such as unemployment, lack of access to education, and inadequate healthcare.
The ongoing struggle against “organised begging,” often linked to human trafficking, only shows why anti-trafficking measures need to be stringent and combined with rehabilitation. The Trafficking of Persons (Prevention, Protection, and Rehabilitation) Act, 2018, provides a much-needed legal framework for combating exploitation and simultaneously provides protection and support for the victims.
However, the challenge remains in the comprehensive implementation of rehabilitative policies. While pilot projects and state-level initiatives like those in Telangana, Rajasthan, and Delhi have shown promise, many obstacles still exist, including inadequate infrastructure, resource constraints, and bureaucratic inefficiencies. These barriers often prevent vulnerable individuals from accessing the support they need.
To move forward, India must continue to refine its approach by focusing on systemic reforms that address the underlying causes of begging and poverty. A multifaceted strategy that includes legal reforms, welfare programs, skill development, and adequate social safety nets is essential. The ultimate goal should be to foster a society where the most vulnerable are not punished for their circumstances, but instead, provided with the opportunities and support they need to live with dignity and independence.
In conclusion, decriminalizing begging is not a matter of legality but a social one, which requires broader societal commitment to human rights and social justice. Only by addressing the structural causes of poverty and marginalization can India build an inclusive society where every citizen—irrespective of their socioeconomic background—can thrive.