Weaponising the law to eradicate begging
The Bhopal district administration order prohibiting and penalising begging ahead of a major summit reeks of the ‘criminalisation by association’ mindset
What happens when the State machinery aims its might against vulnerable citizens? The district collector of Bhopal recently issued an executive order under Section 163 (2) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, (BNSS), prohibiting begging in public areas. The order warns of penal action against those either found to be giving or taking alms.
Section 163 (2), formerly Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, empowers the State to maintain public peace, as it can be invoked by the concerned authority in “urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended danger”. A catena of judgments by the Supreme Court have held that since this section enables the State to undertake preventive measures, the provision, considering its serious implications for fundamental rights, should only be used “to preserve law and order”, with due regard to the specific safeguards to prevent its misuse. Considering that such orders can be passed without giving the concerned persons an opportunity to be heard, courts have observed that an “emergency” under this section “must be sudden and the consequences sufficiently grave”.
The order mentions claims several beggars at traffic signals are involved in criminal activities and addicted to drugs — a weak and vague allegation painting beggars as a criminal group. It reeks of the colonial mindset in its similarity to the Criminal Tribes Act, 1871, whose foundation lays in criminalisation by way of association. By vesting unfettered discretion on the law enforcement agencies, the order eliminates beggars from the streets under the guise of eliminating begging. It does not even differentiate between persons engaged in begging due to necessity and organised criminal networks that take advantage of beggars.
It is not a coincidence that this order was issued just weeks before the Global Investors Summit that took place on February 24 and 25 in Bhopal. Penalising beggars neither to prevent the occurrence of crimes nor to maintain public peace, instead to cleanse public spaces by excluding beggars, seems a patter of such orders. In the run-up to the G20 Summit in Nagpur (2023) and the Global Entrepreneurship Summit in Hyderabad (2017), the two cities prohibited and penalised begging in public places, citing inconvenience to the people and traffic.
Imposing criminal sanctions contradicts the order’s alleged objective of safeguarding, rehabilitating, and reintegrating beggars into society. While the order states that a shelter facility has been reserved for the accommodation of beggars, it overlooks the underlying issues of poverty and the lack of adequate state assistance, both of which contribute to the problem. The Supreme Court in Harsh Mander vs Union of India (2018) has acknowledged that begging has deep, entrenched socio-economic underpinnings. The majority of people engaged in begging do so to survive, not out of their own volition.
The order also contradicts the welfarist approach of the Union government’s sub-scheme, Comprehensive Rehabilitation of Persons Engaged in the Act of Begging, which is under implementation in 81 cities/towns, including Bhopal. Its guidelines mention “mobilising” the persons engaged in begging to the shelter homes as one of its four components, but this certainly does not warrant a disproportionate use of State power to facilitate such mobilisation. The presence of beggars underscores the inadequacy of the State machinery to adequately provide for its citizens. Imposing punitive measures exposes the narrow approach of the State towards dealing with such issues. It is time the State stopped saying “nobody should beg” and instead worked on “nobody should have to beg”.
Sneha Priya Yanappa is with Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy and Avinash Reddy Pichhili is the co-founder of DEVISE - Developing Inclusive Education. The views expressed are personal
