The Delhi High Court Wednesday struck down the legal provision criminalising begging in the capital, and observed that “people beg on the streets not because they wish to, but because they need to”.
Delhi High Court has declared 25 sections of Bombay Prevention of Begging Act, 1959 which have been extended to Delhi, as “unconstitutional”.
A bench comprising acting chief justice Gita Mittal and justice C Hari Shankar struck down the provisions of the Bombay Prevention of Begging Act, 1959, as unconstitutional, except those parts which criminalise “forced” begging. That would still be an offence. “How can begging be an offence when the state cannot provide food or jobs,” the bench had observed during the hearing on the legality of the act which is in force in many states.
DELHI HIGH COURT RULING –
The court added that the state is at liberty to bring in an alternative legislation to curb rackets of forced begging, after undertaking an empirical examination on the sociological and economic aspects of the matter.
The bench also said that the inevitable consequence of this verdict would be that the prosecutions under the Act against those who are alleged to have committed the offence of begging, would be liable to be struck down. “The power to do so would, however, appropriately vest in the courts seized of such prosecutions, and we, therefore, limit ourselves to observing that the fate of such prosecutions, if any, would have to abide by the present judgement, and our observations and findings contained herein,” the court said in a 23-page judgement.
It said the state is at liberty to bring in alternative legislation to curb any racket of forced begging after undertaking an empirical examination on the sociological and economic aspect of the matter. The high court’s verdict came on two PILs by Harsh Mander and Karnika Sawhney seeking to decriminalise begging and for basic human and fundamental rights of beggars in the national capital.
The central government had said it cannot decriminalise begging and there were sufficient checks and balances in the Act which criminalises begging.
“A person who is compelled to beg cannot be faulted for such actions in these circumstances,” it said and concluded that “the inevitable sequitur to our decision would be that all prosecutions, under the Act against persons alleged to have committed the offence of begging, would be liable to be struck down”
BACKGROUND-
They had challenged the constitutional validity of the provisions of the Act which made begging an offence, in relation to Delhi. The Centre and the AAP government had in October 2016 told the court that the Ministry of Social Justice had drafted a bill to decriminalise begging and rehabilitate beggars and homeless people. But the proposal to amend the legislation was later dropped.
Currently, there is no central law on begging and destitution and most states have adopted the Bombay Prevention of Begging Act, 1959, which criminalised begging, or have modelled their laws on it.
The power to do so would, however, appropriately vest in the courts seized of such prosecutions, and we, therefore, limit ourselves to observing that the fate of such prosecutions, if any, would have to abide by the present judgment, and our observations and findings contained herein,” it added.