The debate over anti-begging laws is back as the Punjab and Haryana High Court reviews their constitutionality. This case sparks key questions on constitutional rights, the State’s duty to combat poverty, and the balance between justice and order. 

For law students, it’s a golden chance to explore constitutional interpretation and socio-legal insights!

The Case: An Overview

On January 20, 2025, the Punjab and Haryana High Court took a bold step. A division bench issued notices to both state governments. This follows a powerful Public Interest Litigation (PIL) by Kush Kalra.

The PIL challenges anti-begging laws, calling them unjust. It claims they violate constitutional rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21. These laws, it says, punish poverty instead of addressing its causes. Criminalising the vulnerable is not justice—it’s oppression.

The court will hear the case on March 22, 2025. This isn’t just a legal debate; it’s a fight for dignity. For law students, it’s a moment to explore constitutional interpretation. This case highlights how the law shapes lives—for better or worse.

Dive into this issue. Feel the pulse of justice. Learn how the law can change society. This case is a masterclass in rights, equality, and the power of legal advocacy!

Do Anti-Begging Laws Violate Fundamental Rights?

1. Article 14 (Equality Before Law)
   The PIL argues that anti-begging laws unfairly target the poor, creating discrimination based on economic status. Criminalising poverty perpetuates inequality rather than addressing it.
2. Article 19 (Freedom of Speech and Occupation)
   Activities classified as begging—such as singing, performing tricks, or fortune-telling—are vocations protected under Article 19. By criminalising these activities, anti-begging laws restrict individuals’ right to earn a livelihood.
3. Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty)
   Treating poverty as an offence violates the right to live with dignity. The PIL asserts that these laws fail to align with the principles of constitutional rights, leaving the marginalised even more vulnerable.

We urge our law students to explore how anti-begging laws measure up to the “reasonableness” test required for restricting fundamental rights. Can these restrictions ever be justified under the Constitution?

Legal Precedents on Anti-Begging Laws

The petitioner relies heavily on earlier judgments that have declared anti-begging laws unconstitutional:

1. In 2018, the Delhi High Court struck down parts of the Bombay Prevention of Begging Act, 1959, applied in Delhi. It ruled that criminalising begging fails the test of constitutional interpretation. The court called for targeted laws to tackle forced beggary.
2. In 2020, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court declared poverty is not a crime. Criminalising begging, it said, punishes the State’s failure to ensure welfare, not the individuals struggling to survive.

As law students, you may want to compare these judgments with the Punjab and Haryana laws. You can also explore questions like – ‘How do judicial decisions in one jurisdiction influence similar cases in others?’

Provisions of the Haryana and Punjab Anti-Begging Laws

The Haryana and Punjab laws derive their definitions and penalties from the Bombay Prevention of Begging Act, 1959, including:

• Definition of Begging: Soliciting alms, performing tricks, or exposing deformities to seek alms are classified as begging.
• Punishments:
  • Haryana: Up to 5 years of imprisonment.
  • Punjab: Up to 10 years of imprisonment.

As law students, you should evaluate whether these definitions are excessively arbitrary. Should the focus be on rehabilitation rather than punishment?

Ethical and Legal Concerns with Anti-Begging Laws

• Criminalisation of Poverty: Anti-begging laws target the most vulnerable, blurring the line between public order and social justice. The PIL argues these laws worsen poverty instead of addressing it.
• Economic and Social Realities: Data shows that 74% of those arrested come from the informal sector, and 45% are homeless. Many arrests are arbitrary, with detainees unaware of their charges.

Do you think there is a better way? Welfare schemes and rehabilitation programs could offer real solutions. Should the judiciary step up and suggest such reforms? This is a pressing question for justice and humanity.

Broader Implications for Law Students

This case offers a rich learning opportunity for law students, touching on multiple areas of legal theory and practice. By studying this case closely, you can learn about:

1. Judicial Activism vs. Judicial Restraint: Should courts strike down anti-begging laws entirely or recommend amendments? You will need to consider the delicate balance of powers in the Constitution.
2. Role of PILs: This case demonstrates how a Public Interest Litigation can serve as a tool for social justice. You can also discuss how PILs have advanced constitutional rights in India.
3. Legal Drafting and Interpretation: The vague language of anti-begging laws, such as terms like “likely” or “ostensible means of subsistence,” invites misuse. You can explore more on how better legal drafting can address these issues.

Relevance to Future Legal Careers

For law students interested in human rights, constitutional law, or public policy, this case provides valuable insights. Here’s what you can learn:

1. Policy Advocacy: The PIL showcases how legal professionals can challenge outdated policies and advocate for systemic change.
2. Criminal Law: The case raises questions about the proportionality of punishments and the criminalisation of non-violent acts – themes central to reforming penal codes.
3. Human Rights Law: Cases like this underscore the importance of aligning State actions with constitutional rights and ensuring the dignity of vulnerable groups.

Conclusion

The debate over anti-begging laws is more than a legal challenge—it is a reflection of India’s moral and constitutional responsibilities. For law students, this case is a golden opportunity to examine the intersection of poverty, social justice, and constitutional principles.

Study the arguments, precedents, and context to see how law shapes society. This case shows why fairness, equality, and dignity matter in justice. Stay tuned!

Read Also – Google vs EU Fact-Checking: A Case in IT Laws

How Social Media Listening Can Create Better Campus Campaigns