Don’t target beggars when civil society members do not follow lockdown too: HC to petitioner

The Bombay high court (HC) questioned a petitioner as to why he was targeting children begging on the streets during Covid-19 while people from civil society do

The Bombay high court (HC) questioned a petitioner as to why he was targeting children begging on the streets during Covid-19 while people from civil society do not follow lockdown and safety norms as well. The court has also directed the state to file a reply in compliance with a 2019 order on the action being taken with regards to rescuing and rehabilitating minor children and women who are found begging on the streets.

HT Image

In view of thousands of minors found begging on the streets soon after lockdown norms were relaxed, the petitioner had sought an urgent hearing of a petition filed last year seeking relief for children and women indulging in begging activities.

On Friday, a division bench of chief justice Dipankar Datta and justice Madhav Jamdar, while hearing the public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Pune resident Dhyaneshwar Darwatkar through advocate Shekhar Jagtap in 2019, was informed that the PIL was based on the outcome of a 2016 survey on beggars in Pune city. The survey conducted by NGO Rainbow India Foundation had revealed that there were more than 10,000 children involved in begging in Pune city, of whom 83% belonged to families that live on streets, 15% were street-working children, while 3% lived alone on the streets.

Pointing to the urgency for hearing the PIL, Jagtap submitted that since lockdown was relaxed begging activities had commenced, putting the lives of children involved in begging as well as that of the general public at risk in view of Covid-19 situation. While seeking urgent relief for children and women involved in begging, Jagtap submitted that these children and women are ‘live bombs’ and hence directions should be issued to the authorities to rescue and rehabilitate them in homes as per the provisions of Maharashtra Prevention of Begging Act, 1960 and other policies related to rights of children begging on streets.

Jagtap also sought directions against police officers who allowed such activities and submitted that the state had failed to comply with orders passed in previous hearings.

After hearing the submission the bench questioned, “Why blame only the beggars? Even other members of civil society do not follow social distancing and other norms.” The court added that the police could not be expected to curb begging while they were involved in containing the spread of the virus; hence the petitioner should be ‘sensitive’ while making their arguments. “The entire nation is facing difficult times and it is not right for the petitioner to target beggars only,” said the bench.

The court then observed that as the state government had not filed a response to the plea since last year, it was granting a last opportunity to the state and other authorities to file replies in affidavit by August 7, and a rejoinder by the petitioner thereafter. The court posted the matter for further hearing on August 14.