On December 16, 2024, Indore’s district collector banned giving alms to beggars under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) as part of the Union government’s SMILE scheme which aims to support marginalized individuals.

Support for Marginalized Individuals for Livelihood and Enterprise (SMILE) scheme

• SMILE scheme is a government initiative in India that aims to rehabilitate people who beg by providing them with education, medical care, and skills training: 
• The scheme’s goal is to make India “beggar-free” by 2026.

Enroll now for UPSC Online Course

Idea of Beggar-Free City

• In preparation for the 2010 Commonwealth Games, Delhi aimed to create a “world-class city” by removing beggars. 
• Consequently, the government declared “zero-tolerance zones” for “beggars.” 
  • Mobile courts and enforcement vans arrested the poor and homeless, along with slum dwellers and street vendors, who were deemed incompatible with the image of a “world-class city.”
• Lessons for SMILE: Delhi’s approach offers lessons for the SMILE scheme, showing how attempts to create “beggar-free” cities can harm the poor. 
  • To understand this, we need to question the definition of a “beggar” and recognize the state’s colonial-era attitudes toward poverty.

Legal Definition 

• Begging falls within the scope of vagrancy(Homelessness) which is mentioned in the Concurrent List (List III, Entry 15) of the Constitution. 
• This entry grants both the Union and state governments the power to enact laws dealing with vagrancy, as well as with nomadic and migratory tribes. 

Check Out UPSC CSE Books From PW Store

The Historical Context of Begging and Vagrancy

• The legal framing of “beggary” has historical roots, particularly with the association of nomadic tribes and vagrancy during the colonial period. 
• The criminalization of nomadic tribes in colonial India was part of the British colonial policy, which aimed to control and regulate the movement of various groups within the empire.
• Meena Radhakrishna, in her book elaborates that the colonial state enacted the Criminal Tribes Act of 1871 to classify certain nomadic communities as criminal. 
  • This law was driven by both prejudices and economic motives, such as maximizing land revenue and safeguarding private enterprise. 
  • The British sought to sedentarize these groups, compelling them to adopt wage labor and abandon their nomadic lifestyles. 
• The discussion surrounding the framing of “beggars” as lazy and undeserving echoes attitudes from medieval England. 
  • In late medieval England, similar prejudices were institutionalized through the Ordinance of Labourers of 1349, England’s first major vagrancy statute, which was enacted after the Black Plague.
• The Black Plague had a significant impact on England’s economy. The pandemic led to a shortage of laborers, which resulted in an increased demand for higher wages and better working conditions, especially in towns.
  • This shift threatened the feudal order, which relied on a steady supply of cheap serf labor. 
  • In response, the English ruling class framed the poor—especially the non-working poor—as lazy, sinful, and morally inferior.
• William Chambliss, in his paper stated that this portrayal was a tool used to maintain social control over the impoverished. 
  • By labeling them as “lazy,” the law sought to restrict their movement and perpetuate the existing feudal structure.
• Marie-Eve Sylvestre in her essay  observes that Anglo-Saxon legal systems continued this trend, with a series of statutes that portrayed the poor as morally inferior, lazy, and dishonest individuals. 
  • These laws criminalized the poor and often treated them as potential threats to public order.

Post-Colonial Legislation on Begging

• The Bombay Prevention of Begging Act, 1959: The act serves as the legal foundation for current anti-begging statutes, defining “begging” not only as soliciting alms but also as activities like street performance or appearing destitute. 
  • This broad definition targets not just beggars but also nomadic communities.
• Impact on contemporary laws: This categorisation gives the police and district authorities a free hand to round up these groups to “beautify” public spaces, as we saw in the case of Delhi.

Recent Jurisprudence and Shifting Perspectives

• Delhi High Court’s 2018 Judgment: The court struck down several provisions of the Bombay Act, declaring them “manifestly arbitrary” and a violation of Article 21, which guarantees the right to live with dignity. 
  • The court questioned the criminalization of begging without addressing the root causes of poverty.
• Supreme Court’s Stance in 2021: In 2021, the Supreme Court refused to entertain a PIL seeking the removal of beggars from public spaces, reinforcing the idea that begging is a socio-economic issue and not one that should be treated with an elitist view .

The SMILE Scheme: Opportunities and Concerns

• Constructive Approach: While the SMILE scheme provides an opportunity to address urban poverty constructively by offering rehabilitation, medical care, and skill-building, it also risks perpetuating outdated definitions and punitive frameworks.
• Reevaluating the Legal Construction of “Begging”: A key challenge for the SMILE scheme is to rethink the legal and juridical construction of “beggars” and “vagrants.” 
  • The reliance on laws that criminalize begging and associated behaviors could undermine the scheme’s goals and fairness, raising concerns about its efficacy.

Enroll now for UPSC Online Classes

Conclusion

The concept of making cities “beggar-free” must be revisited. A holistic approach to urban poverty, which prioritizes dignity, rehabilitation, and structural change over criminalization, is essential for any scheme to succeed in the long term.

DOWNLOAD PDF