Weapons of the law to exterminate the begging

Section 163 (2), formerly § 144 of the 1973 criminal proceedings, enables the state to maintain public peace, since it can be maintained by the affected authority in “urgent cases of disorders or the dangers”. A Catena of judgments by the Supreme Court has determined that the state, since this section enables preventive measures to take, should only be used to “preserve law and order”, taking into account the specific protective measures to prevent abuse, taking into account its serious effects. In view of the fact that such orders can be passed without giving the persons concerned, the courts have found that an “emergency” “suddenly and the consequences are sufficiently serious in the context of this section”.

The arrangement states that several beggars are involved in traffic signals in criminal activities and drug addiction – a weak and vague accusation painting as a criminal group. It supports the colonial way of thinking in its similarity to the criminal tribes act of 1871, the foundation of which lies by means of union in criminalization. Due to the unrestricted discretion of the law enforcement authorities, the arrangement under the guise of removing begging beggars is removed from the streets. It does not even differ between people who beg due to necessity and organized criminal networks that use beggars.

It is no coincidence that this arrangement was issued in Bopal just a few weeks before the Global Investor's summit on February 24th and 25th. The punishment of the beggars not to prevent the occurrence of crimes in order to maintain public peace instead to clean public spaces by excluding beggars, seems to be a pattern of such arrangements. In the run-up to the G20 summit in Nagpur (2023) and on the Global Entrepreneurship Summit in Hyderabad (2017), banned the two cities in public locations and punishes it in public places, whereby people and traffic led inconvenience.

The procedure of criminal sanctions contradicts the alleged goal of the order of protecting, rehabilitation and integrating beggars. While the beggars are reserved in the order, they overlook the underlying problems of poverty and the lack of state support, both of which contribute to the problem. The Supreme Court in Harsh Mander against Union of India (2018) has recognized that begging has profound, socio -economic basics. The majority of people who beg do not do this to survive, not out of their own will.

The order also contradicts the socialist approach of the Union's difference, comprehensive rehabilitation of people who are involved in the files of begging, which is implemented in 81 cities/cities, including Bopal. In the guidelines, the people who beg in the animal shelters will “mobilize” one of the four components, but this certainly guarantees no disproportionate use of state authority to facilitate such mobilization. The presence of beggars underlines the inadequacy of state machines to adequately ensure their citizens. The imposition of punitive measures reveals the state's close approach to deal with such topics. It is time to say that the state stopped saying “nobody should beg” and instead on “Nobody should have to beg”.

Sneha Priya Yanappa is in the Vidhi Center for Legal Policy and Avinash Reddy Pichhili is a co -founder of motto – development of integrative education. The views expressed are personal