Everyone has a right to live with dignity under the Indian Constitution. Anyone who asserts their rights to adequate shelter, food, clean drinking water, education, and health care should not be subjected to criminal prosecution. The anti-begging legislation in India appears to have been enacted on the notion that persons voluntarily embrace idleness and that idleness is a possible cause of annoyance that can escalate to criminal activity.
Begging, on the other hand, is a societal problem that should not be deemed criminal. Even the most seriously ill, lepers, physically and psychologically handicapped beggars, and even those who are not dangerous or intimidating, could be detained and deported. Begging is defined in the law in an imprecise and unclear manner, resulting in an identity complex.
The anti-begging law, on the surface, criminalizes people for who they are instead of for the activities in which they are involved. Therefore, the research question which this law review article seeks to answer is Whether the criminal law is penalizing the act of begging or someone who is indulging in begging and is the state right in criminalizing it?
Part-1 of the article includes the brief overview of the Bombay Prevention of Begging Act, 1959.
In Part-II, the historical background of begging has been discussed, how it existed in different forms and the historical development of Indian Begging Act.
Part-III briefly discusses the Indian Act, that is the Bombay Prevention of Begging Act, 1989 and the discrepancies in it and how the punishment provided in the act is not proportionate. It also discusses how criminalizing begging violates the fundamental rights of the beggars. Lastly, it argues how the rehabilitation provided to beggars after their arrest is a failure.
Part-IV of the article gives recommendations and solutions for abolishing Begging such as decriminalizing the entire act, reformation of the convicts etc.
Lastly, the article ends with a conclusion that penalizing beggars is not at all a realistic method to deal with the problem of begging and thus the state should not penalize begging and the beggars and work on their reformation.
In general, street beggars are classified according to their capabilities and infirmities, which are determined by the manner in which they earn their livelihood from the streets. There are three types of beggars in India, each of which has its own classification: those who do it as a vocation, those who are forced to do it, and those who do it as a result of circumstance.
Beggary is an ancient social phenomenon that has existed for thousands of years. Giving donations to beggars was and continues to be regarded as a moral deed by many people throughout history. In Hinduism, Jainism, and Buddhism, the term "bhiksha" (alms) is commonly used to refer to charitable contributions. Buddhism, on the other hand, sees the begging of noble men as a good thing. Muslims also adhered to the concept of 'Zakat,' which translates as charity.
Begging has been criminalized from the beginning of colonial construction. Traditional communities have long accepted and tolerated those who rely on begging for their livelihood. Beggars were perceived differently during colonial administration in India. In the 1920s, begging was first made illegal in British India. In 1959, the Bombay Prevention of Begging Act was updated and made it illegal to beg in all Indian States, even Delhi.[2]
In England, the 'Vagrancy Act 1824', which was passed over a century back and deals with beggars and the homeless, is still in effect. The Indian begging act is based on the England's Vagrancy Act of 1824.
Beggary was a common practise in the Middle Ages, not only in Europe but also in Great Britain. Providing assistance to those in need was regarded as a saintly and noble act. One of the goals of earlier regulations in England was to keep workers from migrating to other parts of the country. The goal was to compel those who were physically capable to work. Only the disabled were given the opportunity to beg.
According to the Government of UK, begging is an antisocial, disruptive and unacceptable practice and should be suppressed. Begging became illegal in England once the Vagrancy Act of 1824 was passed. Almost all Indian legislations, including the anti-begging statute, is based on English law. Although there is no compelling situation in India to criminalize the act of begging, still the state considers beggars as criminals.
Begging is a necessity, because it keeps people from having to resort to criminal activity such as theft, extortion, or robbery in order to get what they require. Additionally, when a beggar passively requests assistance, a passerby who believes that beggars are unworthy of assistance may be angered. As an alternative to criminalising the beggar, it is possible to just disregard such a request.
It's an epiphenomenon to criminalize passive begging for the sake of shame and inconvenience[3]. In the general public, it fosters a culture of intolerance toward those who are less fortunate. Unless a beggar is hostile, abusive, or a stalker, the mere existence of his/her in a public location does not constitute a criminal violation. It is necessary to develop socioeconomic remedies for those who are destitute.
British authority in India required a work force for wartime efforts in the 1940s. People were asked to abandon their agricultural jobs and relocate to urban areas. Following the war, there was widespread retrenchment. People who had migrated to cities found themselves without work and had lost their former jobs.
They were stranded with nowhere to go. Beggary was originally identified as a public health issue. In the beginning, West Bengal made a law. Then, Mysore and Madras did the same thing. Since India's independence in 1947, beggary laws have been in effect in 22 of the country's states and union territories.
There is no national Act on beggary, various states and Union Territories have utilized the Bombay Act as the foundation for their own legislation. The Act defines a beggar as: someone having no visible means of subsistence and wandering, about or remaining in any public place in such condition or manner, as makes it likely that the person doing so exist soliciting or receiving alms[4].
Begging under the Act includes:
soliciting or receiving alms, in a public place whether or not under any pretence such as singing, dancing, fortune telling, performing or offering any article for sale.[5]
In accordance with the principle 'purpose of beggar homes,' beggars are trained and placed in jobs. The Delhi High Court observed that to subject them to further ignominy and deprivation by ordering their detention in a Certified Institution is nothing short of de-humanising them[11]. The Delhi HC also observed that it is nothing but imprisonment, unless in the rehabilitation centers the beggars are provided with decent job-oriented training[12].
The occupational training given in rehabilitation houses is also a significant drawback, as it is quite inadequate. There is no market for, or even a market link for, the things that are created or taught there. The training is neither job-specific nor market-specific in nature. As a result, they are once again forced to rely on begging for survival as a means of surviving. The entire process of reformation and rehabilitation is therefore a failure.
There are many ways to deal with the harmless beggar who has no other choice but to beg for money. Punishing beggars is not one of these ways. In order to help beggars, become more self-sufficient and stop begging, their rehabilitation should be less aggressive and more therapeutic, and it should also be based on the needs of each person.
Even while these may appear to be expensive and time-consuming, they are likely to be less expensive than recruiting additional police officers and creating more jail facilities for detention of beggars. Such therapy addresses the fundamental reasons of begging, with the goal of ultimately eradicating begging while also safeguarding the right of persons to live in dignity and freely in their daily lives.