Nagpur Bans Begging Ahead of G20, But Courts in the Past Have Begged to Differ

Courts have refused to take an 'elitist view' and said that bans point towards the state's 'miserable failure.'

Come next week, when delegates from across the world gather in Maharashtra’s Nagpur for a widely publicised G20 meet, they’ll witness what the police call a “beautified” city.

This, of course, will come at the cost of the homeless and the beggars, who can potentially land up behind bars for having become a source of “public annoyance.”

Why, you ask?

According to a Times of India report from 9 March, Police Commissioner Amitesh Kumar has said:

“Police and Nagpur Municipal Corporation had been holding discussions for the last one week to plan the drive. The presence of beggars on the streets brings bad name to the city at a time when it is being beautified in view of the G20 summit.”

And, although dubbed “a travesty of justice” by Supreme Court Lawyer Disha Wadekar, this is not happening for the first time.

When Else Has This Happened?

1. In 2023, news of slum demolitions in Delhi for G20 has already started trickling in

2. In 2020, when then American President Donald Trump visited Ahmedabad, the city administration chose to conceal its slums behind a wall

3.  In 2017, the police in Hyderabad made begging illegal ahead of Ivanka Trump’s visit to the city

4. In 2000, Hyderabad Police conducted a similar operation when then US President Bill Clinton visited 

5. In addition to this, about 20 states, over the years have adopted the Bombay Prevention of Begging Act, 1959, which carries a penalty of detention of three to 10 years in 'beggar homes’

So, Are Beggars The Problem?

No and we are not the ones saying that. 

“Why do people beg on the street ? It's a function of poverty. As the Supreme Court, we will not take an elitist view. They have no choice. Nobody wants to beg".

- Supreme Court in 2021

And, in a 2018 judgment (Harsh Mander & Anr. vs Uoi & Ors), the Delhi High Court had addressed the structural reasons that cause poverty: “no access to education, social protection, discrimination based on caste and ethnicity, landlessness, physical and mental challenges, and isolation.”

Wadekar, explained this further:

“Homelessness and begging are never community-blind. Who are these communities? Among others from oppressed castes, there are communities like the nomadic communities, the denotfied tribal communities, who by nature of their traditional livelihood are nomadic in nature.”

Who Is Responsible Then?

According to legal experts and Courts: the State.

“As India is a social welfare state, it is the responsibility of the government to develop policies so that all its citizens can achieve that wholesome life,”

Independent policy analyst Swaptik Choudhury wrote for The Quint

In fact, while pointing out that the “ existence of the need to beg” for sustenance was indicative of the miserable  failure of the state to achieve “for all its citizens real justice” the Jammu & Kashmir High Court struck down the state’s anti-begging laws. (Suhail Rashid Bhat vs State of Jammu & Kashmir, 2019)

The Delhi High Court too, in 2018, had argued that “artificial means to make beggars invisible will not suffice.”

“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 had said while decriminalising begging.

And added:

“This (criminalising begging) requires people to make an unreasonable choice between committing a crime to be rehabilitated or not commit the crime and starve which goes against the spirit of the Constitution.”

How Does It Go Against The Constitution?

Violates The Right To Equality Before Law (Article 14)

By criminalising those from oppressed castes and economically disadvantaged backgrounds, anti-begging drives and laws become inconsistent with one's right to equality, Wadekar explained.

Violates The Right To Life (Article 21)

Since this right includes “the right to take steps including begging to survive and keep body and mind together,” criminalisation of begging deprives a person to obtain basic necessities of life, the Delhi High Court had said. (Harsh Mander & Anr. vs Uoi & Ors 2018)

Violates The Right To Freedom of Speech & Expression (Article 19)

The Delhi High Court had in 2006 (Ram Lakhan vs State) opined that since begging involves communicating one’s deprivations to another person, criminalising it also went against the Right To Freedom of Speech & Expression.

“After all, begging involves the beggar displaying his miserable plight by words or actions and requesting for alms by words (spoken or written) or actions. Does the starving man not have a fundamental right to inform a more fortunate soul that he is starving and request for food?”

Delhi High Court

Perhaps, the Nagpur police would do well to remember the words of Justice Krishna Iyer (Gopalanachari vs State Of Kerala, 1980)  when he had said that “picking up the homeless and the have-nots” cannot be permitted because  to be poor is not a crime in this country.”