From Criminalisation To Compassion: Rethinking India's Anti-Begging Laws

Authored by Dev Arora, a 2nd-year law student at Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab

Representational Image

Abstract

The criminalisation of begging in India, which has its roots in colonial laws, still exists despite constitutional protections for individual dignity and personal freedom. The recent prohibition of almsgiving in Indore under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) is a classic example of a punitive strategy that disproportionately targets the most vulnerable groups. This piece critically analyses the anti-begging legislation in India, bringing to the fore its contradictions with basic rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. Judicial dicta, such as Harsh Mander v. Union of India, have indicted such legislations, underlining the state's obligation to ensure social security and not criminalise poverty. Whereas initiatives such as the SMILE scheme and Rajasthan's rehabilitation-based legal framework are alternatives, the lack of a pan-India decriminalisation attempt demonstrates a policy vacuum. This article calls for a move away from punitive attempts towards integrated social welfare and rehabilitation programs, highlighting the imperative for legal reform aligned with human rights values and economic justice.

Introduction

On January 1, 2025, the district administration of Indore imposed a stringent ban on giving and accepting alms, as well as purchasing goods from beggars, under Section 163(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). According to the order, anyone who violates these rules faces prosecution under Section 223 of the BNSS. In fact, a person has already been booked under this provision for giving a small amount of change to a beggar, and an FIR has been registered. This ban aligns with the Central Government’s SMILE Initiative, which aims to implement long-term rehabilitative strategies to eradicate begging.

This article will critically examine India's anti-begging laws and analyse judicial orders in light of constitutional principles, as well as the Court's perspective on the criminalisation of begging.

Colonial Legacy of Anti-Begging Laws in India

The criminalisation of begging and the labelling of beggars as "offenders" and social outcasts originates from Colonial jurisprudence, where the first law to specifically forbid begging (European Vagrancy Act of 1869) was introduced. Since many Europeans in India were compelled to beg due to unemployment and economic troubles, the main purpose of this regulation was to protect British racial superiority.

Several pre-independence laws, including the Bengal Vagrancy Act of 1943, the Bombay Beggars Act of 1945, and the Madras Prevention of Begging Act of 1945, further formalised the criminalisation of begging. After gaining independence, the term “vagrancy” finds its place in the Concurrent List of the Constitution. This means that the Union government, as well as states, can enact laws on “vagrancy”. Though there is no national law, the Bombay Prevention of Begging Act, 1959, which heavily referenced the 1945 law, became the standard for anti-begging legislation in many states.

India did not repeal these anti-begging laws after gaining independence. As per the Press Information Bureau, Twenty states and two union territories currently have anti-begging laws in place. 

The Unjust Criminalisation of Begging in India

The criminalisation of begging directly threatens the principles of equality, individual liberty, and dignity enshrined in the Indian Constitution. The State is obligated to promote economic fairness and reduce disparities under the Directive Principles of State Policy (Articles 39(b), 39(c), and 46).

The outright prohibition of begging violates Articles 14 and 15, as it discriminates against the poor and excludes them from public spaces due to their socio-economic conditions. Additionally, the ban contravenes Article 19(1)(g), which guarantees the freedom to pursue any profession, by criminalising almsgiving and preventing people from obtaining food through legal means. Since both begging and almsgiving are voluntary actions that neither disrupt public order nor cause harm, the prohibition also violates Article 21, which safeguards the right to life and personal liberty. Not only are these laws arbitrary, but the very notion of arresting people for performing acts of charity rather than combating poverty is equally inconceivable.

In addition, begging is undertaken by needy and poor people to express and seek help, and therefore, it is covered by Article 19(1)(a), protecting freedom of speech and expression. Begging is a necessity rather than a choice, highlighting the failures of the social and economic system to sustain vulnerable populations.

The United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), too, supports structural solutions rather than criminalising begging, and adds that exclusion based on poverty constitutes a violation of human rights. Likewise, the 223rd Report of the Law Commission of India emphasises that poverty is a consequence of systemic social and economic failures, not individual incapacity.

In the matter of Harsh Mander v. Union of India, the Delhi High Court decriminalised begging and reiterated the responsibility of the State to provide social security and essentials to citizens. The court ruled certain provisions of the Bombay Prevention of Begging Act, 1959, as unconstitutional, except for the punishment for those who profit from or force others to beg. Similarly, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court also struck down the state's anti-begging law.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Supreme Court rejected a Public interest litigation that sought to bar beggars from public spaces, recognising that begging is a socioeconomic issue rather than a crime. The Court affirmed that while the State has the authority to address the issue, it must do so in line with fundamental rights and constitutional principles.

Banning begging is unjust since it neglects basic freedoms, overlooks organised poverty, and goes against court decisions, along with global humanitarian norms. Rather than chasing punitive responses, fixing and preventing the problems associated with begging while ensuring greater socioeconomic inclusion would require empathetic and rehabilitative strategies.

Efforts Toward Rehabilitation and Legal Reforms

Recognising the need for a structured response, the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment launched the SMILE (Support for Marginalised Individuals for Livelihood and Enterprise) scheme on February 12, 2022. This initiative includes rehabilitation, healthcare, counselling, education, skill development, and economic integration. These programs are implemented collaboratively by state governments, union territories, local urban bodies, non-profits, community-based organisations, and other institutions.

However, SMILE remains a centrally driven project and does not override existing state-level anti-begging laws. Furthermore, despite this policy shift, the Centre has not taken a definitive step toward the national decriminalisation of begging.

In Vishal Pathak v. Union of India (2020), the petitioner sought the decriminalisation of begging and the removal of the nationwide prohibition on the practice. In its April 2021 ruling, the Supreme Court observed that, despite issuing a notice to six states, only Bihar had responded. With just three hearings held, no substantial progress has been made due to the lack of response from the remaining states, leaving a legal void on the matter.

Additionally, to grant legal rights and rehabilitation services to those in destitution, the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment introduced the Persons in Destitution (Protection, Care, and Rehabilitation) Model Bill, 2016. Despite pre-legislative consultations with representatives from several states and union territories, no further action was taken, and the Bill was eventually abandoned.

From Criminalisation to Rehabilitation

The rights of beggars have long been ignored. For years, cities in India have been practising the "beautification" of their streets and roads by removing beggars. But there is no comprehensive legislation with the welfare of beggars in view; they are still convicted of crimes. Beggars are victims of structural injustices, not criminals, and deserve humane treatment rather than replacement. 

Rajasthan, however, followed a different approach and, in 2012, enacted the Rajasthan Rehabilitation of Beggars or Indigents Act, 2012, to replace the punitive measures of the Bombay Prevention of Begging Act, 1959, by decriminalising begging and focusing on rehabilitation. It offers social and financial support instead of criminalising beggars, placing a big emphasis on skills development and vocational training to encourage independence. The new law is welfare-oriented and targets the root of the problem of begging, which includes poverty and social marginalisation. Unlike retribution-based legislation, it guarantees care and protection without coercion and is in line with contemporary social welfare and human dignity values. Bihar’s Mukhyamantri Bhikshavriti Nivaran Yojana works on a similar framework of rehabilitation.

The existing anti-begging laws do not ensure that the Union and the state governments adhere to their constitutional and welfare obligations. Rather than tackle the underlying issues of begging, like poverty and unemployment, which are the result of the State’s failure to care for its citizens, these laws do nothing to rehabilitate these beggars; rather, they simply make them harder to see.

Rajasthan's instance is an example for the Central Government to follow, and their shelved Persons in Destitution (Protection, Care and Rehabilitation) Model Bill, 2016, should be introduced in the parliament for social inclusion and economic empowerment. Article 4 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that a humane legal system must treat the impoverished as members of society, not enemies thereof.

Yet, regressive legislation at the state level that is unrelenting in its punishment of ex-convicts erodes the very tenets of constitutional governance and piles welfare responsibilities onto a criminal justice system that ought to be solving other problems. Challenging the law, the Supreme Court itself has also failed to respond to an appeal since 2021 seeking to decriminalise begging, thanks to a lack of adequate response from state governments. Apart from being a blatant violation of basic rights, blanket bans do nothing to combat systemic poverty — they only further entrench economic divides.