Bhopal’s Ban on Begging

Bhopal joined Indore in prohibiting begging in public spaces. This decision follows a similar order issued by the Indore district collector. Both cities have implemented stringent measures under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. This law allows officials to act against behaviours deemed a nuisance or danger to public safety. The criminalisation of begging remains a controversial issue across India, often seen as anti-poor.

Legislative Framework

• The orders in Bhopal and Indore are based on Section 163 of the BNSS.
• This section empowers district magistrates and other officials to issue orders in urgent situations.
• They can direct individuals to abstain from specific acts. The orders can apply to individuals in particular areas or the public at large.
• Failure to comply with these orders can lead to penalties under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

Penalties for Non-Compliance

• Section 223 outlines the consequences for disobeying a lawful order.
• Offenders may face simple imprisonment for up to six months or a fine of up to ₹2,500.
• If the disobedience poses a danger to life or safety, penalties increase to one year of imprisonment and a fine of ₹5,000.
• The orders issued under Section 163 are temporary, lasting no longer than six months unless extended by the state government.

Historical Context of Anti-Begging Laws

• The first anti-begging law in India was the Bombay Prevention of Beggary Act, 1959.
• This colonial-era legislation aimed to keep streets clear of destitute individuals.
• It allowed for the detention of those deemed incurably helpless.
• The Act has faced criticism for its harsh penalties and for failing to address the root causes of begging.

Judicial Interventions

In 2018, the Delhi High Court decriminalised begging by striking down several provisions of the 1959 Act. The court argued that begging often stems from a lack of basic social security. It brought into light the government’s responsibility to provide for all citizens. However, some sections of the Act remain intact, continuing to criminalise certain aspects of begging.

Current Trends and Activism

Following the Delhi High Court’s ruling, activists have pushed for a complete overhaul of anti-begging laws. They argue for a focus on rehabilitation rather than criminalisation. The Persons in Destitution (Protection, Care and Rehabilitation) Model Bill, 2016, aimed to replace the Beggary Act with measures for rehabilitation. However, discussions on the bill stalled.

Government Initiatives

In 2020, the Union Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment proposed initiatives to rehabilitate beggars rather than punish them. Despite these efforts, many states, including Maharashtra, continue to enforce strict anti-begging laws. The Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, also introduced provisions for the care of homeless individuals with mental health issues.

Questions for UPSC:

1. Critically analyse the implications of criminalising begging in urban areas of India.
2. What are the historical roots of anti-begging laws in India? Discuss their evolution.
3. Estimate the impact of judicial interventions on the lives of individuals who beg.
4. Point out the differences between rehabilitation-focused policies and punitive measures against begging.

Answer Hints:

1. Critically analyse the implications of criminalising begging in urban areas of India.

1. Criminalising begging can lead to increased marginalisation of vulnerable populations, pushing them further into poverty.
2. It may result in punitive actions against individuals who are already in dire need, rather than providing support or rehabilitation.
3. Such measures can strain police resources and divert attention from addressing root causes of poverty and homelessness.
4. Criminalisation may exacerbate public health issues, as homeless individuals are forced into hiding, limiting access to healthcare services.
5. Public perception may shift towards viewing beggars as criminals rather than as individuals in need of assistance, undermining social empathy.

2. What are the historical roots of anti-begging laws in India? Discuss their evolution.

1. The first anti-begging law was the Bombay Prevention of Beggary Act, 1959, rooted in colonial attitudes towards vagrancy.
2. Earlier laws, such as the Bengal Vagrancy Act (1943) and Cochin Vagrancy Act (1945), targeted individuals deemed as ‘vagrants’.
3. Post-independence, laws evolved to institutionalise the detention of beggars, often neglecting the socio-economic factors leading to begging.
4. Over time, criticism of these laws has grown, leading to legal challenges and calls for reform, especially after the 2018 Delhi High Court ruling.
5. Current trends reflect a shift towards viewing begging through a humanitarian lens, advocating for rehabilitation rather than punishment.

3. Estimate the impact of judicial interventions on the lives of individuals who beg.

1. Judicial interventions, like the 2018 Delhi High Court ruling, have decriminalised begging, reducing the legal repercussions for individuals.
2. The decisions highlight the need for social security, prompting discussions on government responsibility towards vulnerable populations.
3. Such rulings can empower activists and NGOs to advocate for better support systems and rehabilitation programs.
4. However, some punitive measures remain, leaving certain aspects of begging still criminalised, which can lead to confusion and inconsistent enforcement.
5. Overall, judicial interventions can improve public perception of beggars as individuals needing assistance rather than as criminals.

4. Point out the differences between rehabilitation-focused policies and punitive measures against begging.

1. Rehabilitation-focused policies aim to address the root causes of begging, such as poverty and lack of social support, through assistance and resources.
2. Punitive measures criminalise begging, often leading to detention without addressing underlying issues, which can perpetuate the cycle of poverty.
3. Rehabilitation policies emphasize social integration and support, while punitive measures often isolate and marginalise individuals further.
4. Supportive approaches can involve mental health care, job training, and housing assistance, contrasting sharply with fines and imprisonment in punitive measures.
5. Ultimately, rehabilitation encourages dignity and empowerment, whereas punitive measures can lead to further disenfranchisement and stigma.