INTRODUCTION
In India, there are approximately 413,670 beggars (220,000 males and 191,000 females),[1] although the actual number is likely higher. Do we even recognise beggars as fellow human beings? The concept of natural rights gave rise to natural laws, which in turn led to the development of Human Rights. These rights, guaranteed by the Constitution and reflected in international agreements, can be upheld by Indian courts. Human Rights ensure the protection of fundamental entitlements such as the right to life, freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, freedom from slavery and forced labour, freedom of expression, freedom of movement, and the right to food and shelter. Disregarding human rights has led to atrocious acts that have appalled humanity. The goal of creating a world where people can enjoy freedom of speech and belief and live without fear or deprivation has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of humanity.[2]
HUMAN RIGHTS ERA
Acknowledgement of the inherent dignity and equal, unalienable rights of every individual is fundamental to fostering freedom, fairness, and peace globally. This statement strongly validates the principles underlying the contemporary human rights framework. Nonetheless, on a practical level, a significant portion of society suffers from various forms of human rights violations such as torture, human trafficking, hunger, unfair treatment, discrimination, and other abuses. Consequently, there’s a substantial disparity between the aspirations outlined in declarations and the actual realisation of these goals. Millions of people continue to experience oppression, and justice frequently falls short of being equitable.
Poverty unequivocally represents the most egregious infringement upon fundamental human rights and poses a dire threat to the very existence of humanity. Those situated in the lower socioeconomic strata are exceptionally susceptible to the exploitation of their human rights by those occupying higher social positions. Despite India’s six decades of independence, it has lagged significantly in ensuring these fundamental rights for its populace. When a welfare state fails to guarantee these basic rights to its citizens, it signifies a profound failure on the part of the state, demonstrating a disregard for human values. In the 21st century,[3] describing someone seeking alms as “begging” evokes a dehumanising image, akin to an animal raising its claws[4] for sustenance. This terminology reflects a troubling reality where beggars are not even recognised as human beings in an era purportedly focused on human rights. The term “beggar” typically brings to mind an individual in tattered clothing seeking charity, yet little attention is given to understanding the circumstances that force them into such a life, despite the abundance of rights enshrined in the Constitution of India. Begging may involve soliciting or receiving alms, but it does not encompass soliciting or receiving money or food given for lawful purposes as prescribed by relevant authorities. Poverty effectively nullifies all human rights.
Sloth, alcoholism, and drug addiction may lead individuals to seek alms, but we must acknowledge the genuine necessity and involvement of some individuals in begging. It’s plausible that someone might be experiencing starvation, homelessness, or helplessness. The fact that homeless or helpless individuals have no choice but to resort to begging reflects the failure of the state to provide adequate support. Laws like the Bombay Prevention of Begging Act, of 1959,[5] are a disgrace in a country like India, which purports to be a welfare state with a responsibility to safeguard the health and well-being of its citizens, especially those facing financial or social hardship. State actions should align with the objectives outlined in Part IV of the Constitution, aiming to establish a truly welfare-oriented state.[6] Punishing beggars with up to ten years of imprisonment under such statutes is a clear indication of the state’s failure to ensure its citizens’ basic means of livelihood. Despite the Constitution of India guaranteeing the right to life, it appears that beggars have been excluded from enjoying such rights.
What is protected by basic rights in an organised society is not only the survival of animals or vegetables but rather the rightful chance to realize one’s full potential as a human being and partake in the joy of creative living. It is ensured when he is released from constraints that impede his progress and is guaranteed every opportunity to flourish himself. All humans are made to accomplish these goals. A person’s right to food, water, a healthy environment, education, healthcare, and shelter is inalienable in a civilised society. A human being’s shelter entails more than just safeguarding his life and limbs. He gets the chance to develop spiritually, academically, cognitively, and physically in this home.[7] Clothing, food, and shelter are basic human rights.[8] Since no one can exist without the means of subsistence, the right to a livelihood is an equally vital aspect of the right to life.[9] The simplest method of denying someone their right to life would be to completely deprive them of their means of subsistence if the right to livelihood is not recognised as a component of the constitutional right to life.
Expressing one’s deplorable situation and requesting charity via words or deeds are examples of begging. The argument now becomes: does the starving guy not have a basic right to tell someone luckier than him that he is starving and ask for food? Should the response to this inquiry be negative, then the concept of human rights and other constitutional rights will have vanished. If this is the case, though, a new issue comes up: is the 1959 Bombay Prevention of Begging Act unconstitutional?
Nobody should be put in jail only because they are unable to carry out their end of a bargain.[10] The Supreme Court took into consideration the fact that merely failing to pay a debt does not warrant a person’s imprisonment and would go against both the Indian Constitution and the spirit of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.[11] When considering this, it seems incomprehensible that someone without a source of income would be imprisoned for up to 10 years under the Bombay Prevention of Beggary Act of 1959.
PARENS PARTIAE THEORY
According to the Parens Patriae principle, the state has a duty to safeguard and preserve its citizens’ rights and privileges in order to fulfil its obligations. According to the Constitution, the State is required to ensure that its citizens have access to the rights that are guaranteed by it. In situations where citizens are unable to assert and secure their rights, the State must intervene to defend and uphold the citizens’ rights.[12] Thus, in order to properly intervene and assume responsibility for the claims of catastrophe victims in order to defend human rights, the state may be called upon and contacted.[13]
The Bombay Prevention of Beggary Act, 1959, violates the basic right to freedom of speech and expression and can result in the forfeiture of liberty. According to the New York Court, it would be irrational to find that someone in need does not have the same free expression protections under the Federal Constitution as a charity solicitor who stands on the same public street corner and solicits donations. It is illogical to distinguish between the messages being conveyed by the individual standing in the corner, saying “Help me, I’m homeless,” and “Help the homeless”.[14]
Democratic socialism seeks to eradicate inequality of opportunity, poverty, and ignorance.[15] Equal protection under the law is a dynamic actualization rather than a mere proclamation. Poverty and extreme poverty have received very little consideration in the logic of human rights, for an unfortunately straightforward reason. There are very few poor people, and those who do exist may only modestly claim poor rights. Over time, we have come to accept that the impoverished individual has used up all of his rights. The really impoverished, on the other hand, are non-existent or, at most, may profit from charity. Most of the time, even the assistance they get is just another sign of their marginalisation from a culture that makes them feel bad. The government officials disregard them.[16]
CONCLUSION
A human rights approach to poverty is essentially about giving the impoverished more freedom to choose and take action in order to manage their own lives. Through the imposition of legal responsibilities on others and the provision of human rights, the international normative framework empowers the impoverished. A framework of accountability must underpin rights and duties; otherwise, they become merely decorative elements. As a result, the human rights approach to reducing poverty places a strong emphasis on duties and calls for the accountability of all parties with a duty to uphold international human rights, including States and multilateral organisations. The fulfilment of other human rights is a necessary condition for the enjoyment of the right to participate. The poor must have a basic degree of economic security and well-being (right to an acceptable standard of living and related rights), as well as the ability to express themselves without fear of retaliation, in order to effectively participate in society.[17]
Author(s) Name: Mridul Mishra (Integral University, Lucknow)
Reference(s):
[1] P, ‘Over 4 Lakh Beggars in India, Most in WB: Govt’ (The Times of India, 13 August, 2015) <https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Over-4-lakh-beggars-in-India-most-in-WB-Govt/articleshow/48470292.cms> accessed 18 February 2024.
[2]National Human Rights Commission, ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’ (National Human Rights Commission) <https://nhrc.nic.in/sites/default/files/UDHR_Eng_0.pdf> accessed 25 February 2024.
[3]Ram Lakhan v State, [2007] 137 DLT 173.
[4]Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 5th edn, vol 2.
[5]Bombay Prevention of Begging Act1959, s 2.
[6]D. S. Nakara v Union of India, [1983] AIR SC 130.
[7]Chameli Singh v State of U. P, [1996] 2 SCR 1051.
[8]P. G. Gupta v State of Gujarat, [1995] (Supp 2) SCC 152.
[9]Olga Tellis v Bombay Municipal Corporation, [1986] AIR SC 180.
[10]International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, art 11.
[11]Jolly George Varghese v Bank of Cochin, [1980] 2 SCC 360.
[12]Law Commission, Ameliorating the Lot of the Have-Nots (Law Com No 223, 2020).
[13]Charan Singh v Union of India, [1990] 1 SCC 613.
[14]State of New York v Eric Schrader, 617 N.Y.S 429.
[15]G.B. Pant University of Agriculture & Technology v State of Uttar Pradesh, [2000] 6 SCC 19.
[16]Law Commission, Ameliorating the Lot of the Have-Nots (Law Com No 223, 2020).
[17]Ibid.
