PIL Moved In Bombay High Court Challenging Constitutional Validity Of Bombay Prevention Of Begging Act

A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed in the Bombay High Court challenging the constitutional validity of the Bombay Prevention of Begging Act, 1960 contenting that it criminalise persons living in conditions of poverty, homelessness and destitution.

The PIL has been filed by NGO - Centre for Promoting Democracy, through advocate Khalil-ur-Rehaman and is likely to be taken up by a division bench of the High Court in due course. 

"...the Act continues to criminalise persons living in conditions of poverty, homelessness and destitution by authorising their arrest, detention and institutionalisation solely on the basis of their socio- economic condition. The Act defines 'begging' in exceptionally wide terms, confers broad powers of arrest without warrant, permits prolonged detention in Certified Institutions, authorises the taking of fingerprints of detained persons, and prescribes a coercive statutory framework that treats poverty as a matter of criminal lawrather than social welfare," the plea reads. 

The petition further points out that the constitutional validity and implementation of this very act has repeatedly been questioned as earlier in 1990, wherein one Manjula Sen had questioned the constitutionality of this law and owing to the said challenge, a Committee was constituted by the Court, which unanimously recommended that the Act be repealed.

"Despite the Committee's report, no legislative action has followed. Subsequently, the Delhi High Court in Harsh Mander vs Union of India and the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir in Suhail Rashid Bhat vs State of J&K declared similar anti-beggary laws unconstitutional, holding that poverty and destitution cannot be treated as criminal offences," the plea pointed out. 

The petition raises issues affecting homeless persons, migrant workers, persons with disabilities, Denotified and Nomadic Tribes and other economically and socially marginalised communities who are 'disproportionately' subjected to the operation of the impugned Act and are unable to effectively access constitutional remedies, the plea reads. 

"The Petition contends that the impugned Act is arbitrary, vague and overbroad; criminalises poverty instead of addressing its structural causes; disproportionately impacts historically disadvantaged communities; and violates hte guarantees of equality, freedom, dignity and personal liberty under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The Petition accordingly seeks a declaration that the impugned provisions are unconstitutional and consequential directions for adopting a rights-based and rehabilitation- oriented framework consistent with constitutional values," the petition states. 

Case Title: Centre for Promoting Democracy vs State of Maharashtra