I do what I do, I do by compulsion but not by option

Written by Hritam Saha
Tiffin-snatching and tiffin-sharing are events of uniformity in everyone’s life. The former has started disappearing in our journey from immaturity to maturity thereby making the latter more practicable. Any friend who has not brought his/her tiffin thereby asked us to share our tiffin with the same, or we voluntarily, have shared our tiffin with the same, neither side thereof considered such a relationship as the one that prevails between an almsgiver and beggar. Why have we not felt that said relationship? Because the person with whom the tiffin got shared has not been in the occupation of seeking food and the person whose food has been shared has not been a giver but a sharer.

What is Begging?

Section 2(b) [i-iii] of The Children Act, 1960 and Section 2(1) [i] {a-e} of The Bombay Prevention of Begging Act, 1959 defines ‘begging’. The operative words in those sub-clauses which constitute ‘begging and separate it from charity of the colossal personalities to the poor are ‘soliciting’, ‘receiving’, ‘extorting’ and ‘obtaining’. All these words except ‘receiving’ mean a force that is applied by the beggar to get something. The applied force herein is the tree whose seed is the non-existence of livelihood. However, one of the sub-clauses of both the said sections has identified that force as pretence and I quote the said sub-clause:
[The Children Act, 1960
2(b) "begging" means-

(i) soliciting or receiving alms in a public place or entering on any private premises to solicit or receive alms, whether under the pretence of singing, dancing, fortune-telling performing tricks or selling articles or otherwise;]

I argue that even the highly paid employees of an organization pretend that their work life and family life are duly balanced and therefore if a dilapidated person claims to be a singer and sings then what's the harm in it? As still giving money/food to the beggar would depend upon the discretion of the listener.  Singing or performing on the public street is the fundamental right of every citizen of India guaranteed by Article 19(1)[a, d,] (2007) 137 DLT 173 Ram Lakhan v. State and that itself operationalizes Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The American case laws that declare laws prohibiting performance on public streets unconstitutional are John v. Lindsay, Goldstein v. Town of Nantucket, Davenport v. City of Alexandria, Virginia, etc. The American courts have held that the public streets on which other forms of free speech namely political and religious rallies are allowed then street performance on those public streets shall also be allowed. However, the government can impose reasonable restrictions on such performance to secure the convenience of the public. Don't the politicians obtain votes by their rhetorical speeches devoid of logic? Isn't that begging?

Note: The provision to section 4 of the Bombay Prevention of Begging Act, 1959 exempts a person, from the application of the said act, entering an owner’s house for begging if the said owner does not complain about the same to the concerned.

Did the Honorable Delhi High Court do justice by holding both a Correctional Home and Imprisonment awarded as punishment same?

In the case of HARSH MANDER & ANR. Vs. UOI & ORS., the Honorable Delhi Court, except Section 11, declared Section 4- 29, of the Bombay Prevention of Begging Act, 1959 (hereinafter ‘said act’) unconstitutional. I quote Section 5(5) of the said act as under:

[5(5) The court shall order the person found to be a beggar under the last preceding sub-section to be detained   in a Certified Institution for a period of not less than one year, but not more than three years...]

The definition of ‘Certified Institution’ is defined by Section 2(ii) of the said Act:

[2(ii) "Certified Institution" means any institution which the [Chief Commissioner]  provides  and  maintains  for  the  detention,  training  and  employment  of  beggars  and  their  dependents  and  includes  an  institution  certified  to  be  such  under  sub-Section (1) of section 13;]

Hence a beggar, under Section 5(5) read with Section 2(ii) of the said act, is detained in the said institution for their development. However, the Delhi High Court, amongst other sections, declared Section 5(5) unconstitutional thereby depriving the detained beggars of the opportunity of developing themselves. The reasoning of the court as to the said deprivation of the beggars is that the said ‘certified institutions’ are having a discording environment for humans to live in. If that was the reason then the court could have directed the State to improve the said environment just like the Supreme Court directed the Centre to construct female toilets in the naval warships for appointing women in warships as previously the same was been disallowed to get commissioned in warships because most of the warships are not having a separate bathroom, cabins and other facilities for women. Section 9 of the said Act says any person dependent on the beggar so detained can also join the latter if the court deems fit to make that happen. The court has not declared and rightly so Section 11 of the said act as unconstitutional that imprisons a person who forces beggary.

The preamble of the said act quotes:

‘Where it is expedient to make uniform and better provision for the prevention of begging in the State of Bombay; for the detention, training and employment of beggars and their dependents  in  certain  institutions;  for  the  custody,  trial  and  punishment  of  beggar  offenders...’

The preamble of the said act itself distinguishes a beggar and its dependents from a beggar offender, the formers are rehabilitated and the latter is punished. However, the court was grossly mistaken in holding the rehabilitation as punishment. Therefore, the court by the stroke of its judicial indelibility has released the Government of Delhi from its statutory imposed obligation of if of not giving life then at least endeavouring to give life to the beggars and their dependents thereby rendering the beggar to remain as they are and where they are.

Note: Tabriz, the capital city of East Azerbaijan Province of northwestern Iran does not have any beggars and homeless people in this world of beggary and homeless trodden.

Illiteracy in Literacy

An illiterate is a person who doesn't know how to read and write and therefore a person who has never been to school is considered illiterate. However, there is indeed illiteracy in literacy and it is more dangerous than having illiteracy in illiteracy. How? Do the schools and colleges teach us how to make money from the knowledge that they are inculcating to us? A big 'NO' (bearing the mass of Jupiter).  Hence, a person having degrees though technically becomes a degreed person but automatically remains an illiterate with zero utility thereby enjoys the most regretted right of remaining degreed unemployed and the gravest refrainment here is that such degreed person cannot even beg to maintain himself or herself, thereby failing to exercise his right under 19(1) [a] rendering Article 21 of the Constitution of India, a body without its soul. It is a shivering irony that the education that inculcates us with self-esteem or sometimes ego or confuses us between the definition of self-esteem and ego, it is such education germinated self-esteem/ego that indeed debars us from doing an act that tarnishes the same.

Whose duty is to regulate or eradicate beggary— Centre or State?

Entry 6 and 9 of List II- State list to the seventh schedule of the Constitution makes beggary the subject of the State and Articles 38(1), 39(a), 41, and 46 of the Constitution of India cast a duty upon the State to address the same. An apparent reading of the words used in the said provisions would neither make beggary the subject of State nor would cast a duty upon the State to address the same because the jurisprudence of constitutional law teaches us that the essence of law lies in its spirit enshrined by the letter but not in the letter itself. Jugal Kishor vs. Cotton Co. Ltd.

I see what I see, I say what I say and I do what I do but all of such that I do, I do from the bottom of the spiral however when my elected or unelected government sees and does, it sees and does from the top of the spiral thereby making me the lamb and it the lion.

Anti-Begging laws in India 

Write a comment ...

The Drain Team

The Drain is a news, analysis, opinion and information initiative. We shed light on the overlooked stories which are shaping the contemporary world. We aim to bring out stories which are usually ditched and drained by the mainstream media, but are of utmost importance to the people.