Where being poor is a criminal act

The recent deaths of beggars in Bangalore have turned the spotlight on the inhuman treatment meted out to the destitutes by the state. While the focus in most of the reports has been on the the living conditions inside the beggars’ home, the law that criminalises begging — The Karnataka Prohibition of Beggary Act (KPBA), 1975 — has escaped scrutiny.

The KPBA is perceived by many to be a piece of social welfare legislation for the rehabilitation of "beggars" by equipping them with skills using which they can earn a livelihood. Nothing can be farther from the truth.  The beggars' home, and facilities run by the state for the detention of beggars, is essentially a jail meant for those convicted of begging.

Section 2 of the KPBA defines beggar as a person “having no visible means of subsistence, wanders about or remains in any public place in such a condition or manner as makes it likely that he exists by soliciting or receiving alms”. This provision alone indicates that shabbily dressed persons, persons who may not “appear” to have gainful employment can be assumed to be beggars. Aged persons who are destitute can easily be presumed to be beggars. In fact, the section does not even require that a person is found begging for her to be considered a beggar. A bare reading of this provision alone indicates the wide latitude given to the police to make an arrest, setting it up for gross misuse and arbitrary enforcement. This is evidently a statute whose main purpose is to make poverty invisible and cleanse public places of sights of destitution. It is perhaps this aspect of the Act that should shock the conscience of any civilised society — that we have a law whose design, in effect, is to criminalise poverty.

Instead of addressing the real question of livelihood and poverty, the anti-beggary laws throw the burden of finding gainful employment solely on the individual — reducing the obligation of the state to provide basic social security.

Despite being a criminal statute nowhere does the Act provide for a person accused of begging to be adequately represented at enquiries that the Act lay down.  The Act assumes that if one is arrested, then one must be guilty. If the Act seeks to deprive a person of his liberty, the state must take the onus upon itself to establish beyond all reasonable doubt that the person is guilty of the alleged offence.

Further, if a person is not able to afford a defence, it is the responsibility of the state to ensure that he/she is provided with free legal aid. The Act does not even make a mention of representation of alleged beggars in the judicial enquiry before the magistrate. Those accused of non-cognisable offences under IPC that are punishable with imprisonment for one year are accorded several rights, including a presumption of innocence, legal representation, bail etc. Alleged beggars under  KPBA are not even given this fundamental right of a just and fair hearing.

The only conclusion that can be drawn is that anti-beggary statutes in their very design are arbitrary laws whose sole purpose is to criminalise poverty. Misuse is coded into the very DNA of these laws. The only possible conclusion that one can draw is that these “lawless laws” should be struck down as unconstitutional.

The writer is a lawyer with Alternative Law Forum.