Answer

India’s anti-begging laws, such as the Bombay Prevention of Begging Act, 1959, largely mirror colonial policies aimed at criminalizing poverty rather than addressing its root causes. These laws often conflict with constitutional rights like Article 21 (Right to Life) and fail to consider socio-economic realities such as unemployment, homelessness, and systemic inequality. Judicial interventions, like the Delhi High Court’s 2018 judgment decriminalizing begging, underscore the need for a rights-based and humane approach. 

Enroll now for UPSC Online Course

India’s anti-begging laws reflect colonial legacies

• Colonial origins: Anti-begging laws stem from colonial policies like the 1871 Criminal Tribes Act, which stigmatized nomadic tribes as criminals and enforced sedentarization.
  For example: The Bombay Prevention of Begging Act, 1959, retains colonial prejudices, criminalizing destitution, performing arts, and street livelihoods as “begging.”
• Social biases: British vagrancy laws framed the poor as morally inferior and lazy, influencing Indian perceptions that beggars are undeserving of support.
  For example: The Ordinance of Labourers (1349) in England influenced the framing of poor individuals as “vagrants” and penalized public visibility of poverty.
• Economic motives: Colonial laws restricted the mobility of nomadic communities to secure labor for plantations and maximize land revenue, echoing restrictions on the poor today.
• Punitive frameworks: Anti-begging statutes prioritize urban aesthetics over welfare, replicating colonial logic of “reform” through punitive measures rather than socio-economic solutions.
• Judicial critique: Courts have noted that criminalizing poverty under outdated colonial frameworks violates constitutional rights and lacks alignment with socio-economic realities.
  For example: The Delhi High Court (2018) struck down arbitrary provisions of the Bombay Act, citing violations of Article 21 (right to dignity).

Intersection of anti-begging laws with constitutional rights, socio-economic challenges, and judicial interventions

• Constitutional conflict: Anti-begging laws undermine Article 21, which guarantees dignity and livelihood, and contravene the Directive Principles of State Policy on poverty alleviation.
  For example: The Supreme Court rejected a PIL (2021) to remove beggars from public spaces, emphasizing the socio-economic roots of poverty.
• Socio-economic inequity: Laws ignore systemic poverty causes, like unemployment and housing shortages, targeting symptoms while failing to address root problems.
  For example: Urban poor in cities like Mumbai face eviction under anti-begging drives, despite lacking access to basic services like sanitation and housing.
• Judicial empathy: Courts have advocated for rehabilitation and systemic reform rather than punitive measures to address poverty as a structural issue.
  For example: The Delhi High Court (2018) emphasized state accountability in providing basic needs before criminalizing poverty.
• Policy gaps: Current laws fail to integrate schemes like SMILE with constitutional obligations for welfare and inclusive growth.
  For example: SMILE scheme aims for beggar rehabilitation but retains outdated, stigmatizing definitions, limiting its transformative potential.
• Human rights concerns: Anti-begging laws perpetuate marginalization of vulnerable groups, contravening global norms on poverty alleviation and human dignity.
  For example: India’s stance contrasts with UN Sustainable Development Goals, particularly SDG 1 (No Poverty) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities).

Comprehensive framework to address urban poverty balancing welfare and dignity

• Community-centric rehabilitation: Establish skill training centers, affordable housing, and medical facilities to support beggars’ reintegration into society without stigma.
  For example: Kerala’s Kudumbashree model empowers marginalized groups through microfinance, self-help groups, and skills training.
• Rights-based approach: Redefine “begging” in laws to distinguish poverty from criminality, ensuring protection under Article 21 and the Right to Livelihood.
  For example: Maharashtra’s amendment to the Bombay Act introduced safeguards for vulnerable groups, emphasizing rehabilitation over penal action.
• Inclusive urban planning: Ensure access to public spaces, low-cost housing, and employment opportunities to integrate marginalized individuals into the urban fabric.
  For example: Delhi’s shelter homes (Rain Baseras) offer night accommodation to the homeless, reducing vulnerability to penal actions.
• Collaboration and accountability: Promote collaboration between government agencies, NGOs, and private sectors to implement holistic poverty alleviation programs like SMILE effectively.
  For example: The Akshaya Patra Foundation collaborates with governments to provide meals to urban poor, aiding nutritional security.
• Public awareness campaigns: Promote empathy by educating citizens about poverty dynamics and the need for inclusive policies, reducing social stigma against beggars.
  For example: Campaigns like Swabhimaan Bharat promote community-driven solutions and destigmatization of urban poverty.

Check Out UPSC CSE Books From PW Store

A comprehensive framework must integrate welfare schemes like PM Garib Kalyan Yojana and DAY-NULM with strategies for skill development, affordable housing, and mental health support. Drawing lessons from global models such as Finland’s Housing First Policy, India can tackle urban poverty effectively. Aligning these measures with constitutional principles ensures social justice while addressing the colonial legacy of criminalizing the marginalized.

DOWNLOAD PDF