Begging no more an offence in Delhi: HC

NEW DELHI: Noting that criminalising begging violates the fundamental rights of the most vulnerable people of society, the Delhi high court on Wednesday decriminalised the act in the capital.
A bench of acting Chief Justice Gita Mittal and Justice C Hari Shankar held that begging in the city will no more be treated as an offence while pointing out that people beg on the streets not because of their wish but as a “last resort” to meet their needs.

Criminalising begging violates fundamental rights of some of the most vulnerable people in our society, the court noted as it blamed the State for not being able to ensure even the bare essentials of the right to life to all its citizens. Observing that begging is a symptom of a disease, the bench struck down penal provisions of the Bombay Prevention of Begging Act as unconstitutional, adding these couldn’t be applied in the national capital. The bench made it clear that an “inevitable consequence of this verdict would be that prosecutions under the Act against those who are alleged to have committed the offence of begging would be liable to be struck down.”

HC: State can’t fail in its duty to provide decent life to citizens

The State simply cannot fail to do its duty to provide a decent life to its citizens and add insult to injury by arresting, detaining and, if necessary, imprisoning such persons, who beg, in search for essentials of bare survival, which is even below sustenance.

A person who is compelled to beg cannot be faulted for such actions in these circumstances,” the court observed. However, it explained that only courts hearing such cases can strike down the prosecutions. “We, therefore, limit ourselves to observing that the fate of such prosecutions, if any, would have to abide by the present judgement, and our observations and findings contained herein,” it specified, while allowing two petitions filed by social activist Harsh Mander and Karnika Sawhney.

In its judgment the court stressed that government is free to bring in a proper well researched law based on factual analysis to curb any racket of forced begging after undertaking an empirical examination on the sociological and economic aspect of the matter. While the central government had said it cannot decriminalise begging and there were sufficient checks and balances in the Act which make it an offence, the AAP government had supported decriminalising the act of begging.

While striking down a total of 25 sections of the Act, the high court said "these provisions either treat begging as an offence, committed by the beggar, or deal with ancillary issues such as powers of officers to deal with the said offence, the nature of enquiry to be conducted, punishments and penalties to be awarded for the offence, institutions to which such 'offenders' could be sent to and procedures following the awarding of sentence for committing the said offence.

“These provisions, in our view, cannot sustain constitutional scrutiny and, therefore, deserve to be struck down,” the bench observed while keeping rest of the provisions of the Act intact since these do not directly or indirectly relate to the ‘offence’ of begging. During the hearings earlier, the court had asked how begging could be an offence in a country where the government is unable to provide food or jobs. It had found merit in the petitioers case that apart from decriminalising it the beggars should be provided basic amenities, such as proper food and medical facilities, at all homes for beggars. In the run up to the verdict the government had since 2016 maintained that its Ministry of Social Justice had drafted a bill to decriminalise begging and rehabilitate beggars and homeless people. But the proposal to amend the legislation was later dropped. At present there is no central law on begging and destitution and most states have adopted the Bombay Prevention of Begging Act, 1959, which criminalised begging, or have modelled their laws on it.