#crime Archives - Prime Legal

26 Apr

This is a clear instance of day light custodial death- The High Court of Delhi expresses disappointment over negligence of police.”

Prime Legal

Blog #crime, #Custodial Death, #custody, #Police, s.302

Case Title: Setara Bibi v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Case No.: W.P.(CRL) 1224/2024

Dated: April 23, 2024

Quorum: Justice Jyoti Singh

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The case’s facts revolve around In pursuance of Section 482 Cr.P.C. and Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, the petitioner has filed this writ suit on their behalf, requesting the following reliefs.

a Writ/Order/Direction in the nature of Mandamus and/or any other Writ/Order/Direction in the nature of any other appropriate Writ was in effect, directing the Respondent to file a First Information Report (FIR) in accordance with Sections 166, 302, 325, 331, 352, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the Chief Investigating Officer, the SHO, and the other negligent police officers of Police Station Subhash Place.

In brief, the case’s facts state that the husband of Setara Bibis died while in the custody of the respondents as a result of their simple carelessness. The petitioner is the deceased person’s 22-year-old widow, who has been circling the courts in the hopes of getting justice. The FIR has not yet been filed, and the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is still pending.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER:

According to directions, Ms. Rebecca John, the Petitioner’s experienced Senior Counsel, limits the relief to requests. It is argued that the current case is related to the tragic passing of late Sheikh Sahadat on July 23, 2023, while he was purportedly in the custody of Subhash Place Police Station officers.

Additionally, it is argued that the petitioner is a 22-year-old widow of the deceased who has been circling the legal system in an attempt to obtain justice. It is requested that the magistrate’s investigation into the death of the petitioner’s husband while in custody be opened on July 23, 2023, and that it remain open to this day, almost nine months later, with no indication of when it will be concluded. However, the application made in accordance with Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is still waiting, and the FIR has not yet been filed.

Furthermore, the petitioner is alleged to be a 22-year-old widow of the dead who has been recurrently involved in the court system in an effort to seek justice. It is requested that the inquiry into the petitioner’s husband’s death while in police custody be launched by the magistrate on July 23, 2023, and that it continue to be open now, nearly nine months later, without providing a timeline for completion.

According to an order annexed to the petition and dated December 22, 2023, the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate of the North West District of the Rohini Courts stated that a FIR is not being filed until the Magisterial inquiry’s conclusion and the FSL report is received.

The learned Senior Counsel states that this demonstrates the State’s total insensitivity to a grave situation in which a 32-year-old man was discovered dead while allegedly under police custody, with black and blue bruise marks covering his back and chest and swellings on his hands and legs. The family of the deceased captured this on camera when they visited the mortuary where the body was being held.

LEGAL PROVISIONS:

Section 482 Cr.P.C- Saving of inherent power of High Court. Nothing in this Code shall be construed as restricting or affecting the High Court’s inherent authority to issue orders as may be required to carry out any directive made pursuant to this Code, to stop misuse of the legal system, or to further further the goals of justice.
Section 166 of IPC- Public servant disobeying law, with intent to cause injury to any person. Any public servant who willfully disobeys legal instructions regarding how they should conduct themselves in that capacity with the intent to cause harm to others or knowing that it is likely that they will, will be punished with either simple imprisonment, a fine, or both. This punishment can last up to a year.
Section 302 of IPC- Punishment for murder. Anyone found guilty of murder faces a mandatory life sentence in prison or the death penalty, in addition to a fine.
Section352 of IPC- Punishment for assault or criminal force otherwise than on grave provocation. Anyone found to have attacked or used unlawful force against another person without that person’s serious and unexpected provocation faces a maximum sentence of three months in prison of any kind, a maximum fine of five hundred rupees, or both.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT:

That court held that the following is directed that the Magisterial inquiry into the death of late Sh. Sheikh Sahadat be completed as soon as possible and no later than three months from today, taking into account the case’s facts and circumstances, the fact that the inquiry began on July 23, 2023, and is still pending, and the fact that the learned CMM is not moving forward with the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. because of the pendency of the inquiry.

Additionally, it was held that the learned CMM was instructed to move quickly with the matter, including giving the Director of FSL a directive to provide the report right away, in the case of a pending application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. It was requested of the Director, FSL to investigate the situation and make sure the FSL report is delivered to the relevant Court as soon as possible.

This Court expressed optimism and hopes that the concerned magistrate handling the investigation and the knowledgeable CMM handling the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. will investigate the matters with the necessary seriousness, empathy, and diligence and will act quickly.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgment reviewed by Riddhi S Bhora.

Click to view judgment.

18 Apr

“Fatal Grapple: The Daylight Murder where the Supreme Court upholds S. 302 of the IPC in a heartbreaking case.”

Prime Legal

Blog # Supreme Court, #crime, #murder, s.302

Case Title: Chandan v. The State (Delhi Admn)

Case No.: Criminal Appeal No.788 OF 2012

Dated: April, 2024

Quorum: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Prasanna B Varale

FACTS OF THE CASE:

In this case, the appellant (Chandan) was accused of murder. The case was first tried in the High Court of Delhi. Aggrieved by the decision, the case was then appealed to the Supreme Court. It was on May 28, 1993, the deceased (Rakesh) and the accused (Chandan) were walking a few steps ahead of the sister-in-law of the deceased.

The eyewitness (PW-2) saw the two grappling with each other, and then she witnessed the accused stabbing the deceased multiple times with a knife. Thereafter, he was taken to a nearby clinic and then to Hindu Rao Hospital, where he was declared dead. The post-mortem revealed several ante-mortem injuries, including stab wounds on different parts of the body.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT:

Throughout the court case, the appellant made a number of arguments. He continued by claiming that the prosecution had not shown that the accused had any motivation for committing the claimed offence.

This argument is valid, but it’s important to remember that the case mostly depends on eyewitness testimony, which is reliable and rarely influenced by a lack of clear motivation. He added that the defence stressed that there is nothing to undermine the witness’s testimony because this is a daytime murder that was observed by a trustworthy eyewitness (PW-2). Consequently, given the direct sight of the action, the motive itself loses much of its significance.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT:

The prosecution, according to the respondent, made a point of highlighting the ocular testimony of the trustworthy eyewitness (PW-2) as strong evidence. It is less important to prove a particular purpose when an eyewitness testimony gives the court confidence.

The eyewitness testimony’s credibility is not greatly impacted by the simple lack of a clear motivation. The prosecution emphasised the type and extent of the deceased’s antemortem injuries. The medical examination revealed many wounds on different parts of the body, consistent with a vicious stabbing attack. Particularly, Injury No. 5 involved the pericardium and the tip of the left ventricle of the heart, penetrating the chest cavity and pointing upward. These wounds were enough to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.

LEGAL PROVISIONS:

Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code: The appellant was convicted under this section, which deals with the offense of murder. It prescribes punishment for intentionally causing the death of another person.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT:

The case was first tried in the Delhi High Court. The court upheld the conviction of the appellant (Chandan) under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The prosecution’s evidence, which included the accused’s arrest and an Indica automobile with bloodstains from the deceased on the rear seat, was deemed convincing by the trial court.

The Supreme Court held that the prosecution provided all the evidence necessary to prove the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution had established its case, as both the trial court and the appellate court correctly concluded. The credibility of the eyewitness testimony and the type of antemortem injuries the deceased had sustained were key components of the case.

To summarize, the accused was found guilty of murder by the courts because they considered the prosecution’s evidence to be credible. The absence of a clear motivation had no appreciable effect on the case, and the eyewitness testimony was essential in establishing guilt.

Judgment reviewed by- Riddhi S Bhora

Click to view judgment.

14 Jan

Rape, Murder and Remission: Supreme Court on Bilkis Bano Case

Prime Legal

blog #Bilkisbano, #crime, #legalnews, #lsupremecourt, #rape

“A woman deserves respect howsoever high or low she may be otherwise considered in society or to whatever faith she may follow or any creed she may belong to. Can heinous crimes, inter alia, against women permit remission of the convicts by a reduction in their sentence and by granting them liberty?”

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India passed a judgement in the infamous case of Bilkis Bano favouring the victim and her late family. The judgement is considerably known as a historic landmark judgement shaping the criminology and victimology aspect of law.

The battle of Bilkis Bano in the legal fraternity proves that crime and punishment are two sides of the same coin. While the victim is granted relief as justice prevails, the liberty of the convicts has been taken away and they have been ordered to return to prison.

Factual Matrix

The case starts its roots in the year 2002 in Gujarat during the communal riots. 11 members of the protestors who later came to be known as the convicts of the case broke into Bilkis Bano’s house. They then proceeded to gang rape her along with her family members who were as young as 2- days old. The family members were killed, gang raped and severely abused. In total 22 members of her family were brutally murdered.

The case moved to the Supreme Court to Gujarat and then finally to Maharashtra. The accused members were convicted and sentenced accordingly. In an appeal to the Gujarat Sessions court by one of the convicts, remission was granted in the year 2022 upon which all the convicts were free and granted liberty.

In August 2023, Bilkis moved to the Apex Court and pleaded to quash the remission orders along with other PILs which supported her case.

The Issue

The core contemplation of the case was whether the State of Gujarat had jurisdiction in granting remission. While going through the proceedings of the case of conviction, it is evident that the transfer of court occurred from Gujarat to Maharashtra. The special court of Maharashtra convicted the criminals on charges of gang rape and murder. Subsequently, the government of Maharashtra was legally responsible for considering a grant of remission.

When the Government of Gujarat granted remission, it was through the central government which approved it through the way of the Home Ministry in Delhi.

The mischief :

One of the convicts had filed an application in front of the CBI and the State of Maharashtra that he had important information withheld which would grant him remission. Both the agency and the government of Maharashtra rejected his case and held that remission would not be granted.

He then fraudulently received permission to approach the Gujarat Government for remission. Upon that, it was revealed in the judgement that the State of Gujarat had used the rules of remission which has not been amended as per the central government. The rules used were the 1992 remission policy instead of the 2014 remssion policy. In the new rules, no government is allowed to grant remission to rapists. Furthermore, as per Section 433A of CrPC, a person would not be granted remission if he has been punished under life imprisonment and 14 years have not been elapsed. It has been stated that the Gujarat Government took advantage of the legal system by not appropriating the laws. It was stated that the central law would prevail over the laws of the state regarding remission.

The Judgement

The two bench judgment of the Supreme Court will prevail for years to come. The court held that the State Government of Gujarat had no power whatsoever to grant remission for the 11 criminals. The crime committed against the victim and her family was considered to be a social crime as it resulted in a community frenzy. The court drew proportionated the crime committed with that of the social impact it has. The more socially perverse, the less chance of being granted remission was implied by the court of justice.

The court then interpreted the term “appropriate government” to grant remission and held that the state of Gujarat had no powers to shorten the sentence of the criminals and subsequently usurped its powers. In the current matter, the appropriate government was the state of Maharashtra as the case was transferred by the Supreme Court in the year 2002 as it feared the State of Gujarat may have partiality towards the accused. As per Section 432(7)(a) of the CrPC, the appropriate government would be the government which gave the order of conviction and not any other jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court in vesting its powers also held that the 11 convicts shall not hold the power to remission as the gravity of the crimes committed is severe in nature. The court found it appropriate that the 11 convicts be sent back to prison as they have committed grave crimes against humanity the pain of which is irrevocable.

The court agreed that personal liberty is a most important constitutional value enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. But in the current case, the liberty of the 11 men was a result of the mistake of the Gujarat government, an incompetent authority, is set aside. Therefore as per the court, it is only reasonable to send the 11 men back to prison.

Conclusion

The rule of punishment includes the mere chance of reducing the punishment. The court analysed the principles of punishment and vehemently acknowledged that in matters of grave, heinous and diabolical crimes, the predators should not be left scott-free. It is believed that the Gujarat Government made a grave error which should have been interfered with by the Supreme Court in its early stages, further stopping the misuse of power.

The two bench judgement upheld the rule of law which is no one is above the law along with the principle of equality which is everyone is equal in the eyes of the law.

Written by- Sanjana Ravichandran

17 Nov

A Person Accused Of A Bailable Offence Is Entitled To Bail As A Matter Of Right : High Court of Himachal Pradesh

Prime Legal

Blog #Bailable, #crime, #law, #Legal News, #pocso

Title: Sushil Kumar v State of Himachal Pradesh

Citation: Cr.MPM No. 2705 of 2023

Coram: Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla

Decided On: 9^th November, 2023

Introduction:

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking pre-arrest bail. It has been asserted that F.I.R. No. 146/2023, dated 27.08.2023, was registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 376, 506 of IPC, Sections 6 and 21 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act in Police Station Bhoranj, District Hamirpur, H.P. The petitioner was not made accused initially in the F.I.R. but, subsequently, he was made an accused for the commission of an offence Punishable under Section 21 of the POCSO Act.

Facts:

It was asserted that the victim was studying in 10+2 standard. In September 2022, there was a tournament in the school where, the main accused administered some substance to the victim and took her to the hotel, where he prepared an indecent video and raped her. He threatened the victim to make her video viral in case of reporting the incident to any person. The main accused subsequently uploaded the Video on the Facebook. The police registered the F.I.R. and conducted the investigation. The victim was found to be a minor.

The main accused had raped the victim in September 2022, November 2022, December 2022, January 2023, and 15th February 2023, when he was a minor but he had attained the majority in April 2023 at the time of the commission of offence. The main accused was arrested. It was found during the investigation that the incident had taken place in Hotel River View. The victim had visited the hotel four times in school dress. The Manager and owner of the hotel knew that the victim was in school dress and she was a minor but they failed to report the matter to the police. Hence, the offence punishable under Section 21 of the POCSO Act was made out against the petitioner.

learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the offence punishable under Section 21 of the POCSO Act is bailable and the petitioner is entitled to the bail as a matter of right. There is no evidence that the petitioner was aware of the commission of a crime and the offence punishable under Section 21 of the POCSO Act was not made out against him. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on pre-arrest bail.

Court’s Analysis and Judgement:

A perusal of the Section shows that it provides imprisonment of six months/one year or/and a fine. It does not mention whether the offence is bailable or not. Since the POCSO Act does not provide the nature of the offence; hence, it has to be determined with reference to the Code of Criminal Procedure. The classification of the offences under the Code of Criminal Procedure clearly shows that if the offences are punishable with imprisonment for less than three years, the offences are bailable and non-cognizable. Section 21 of the POCSO Act provides a punishable of six months/1 year; therefore, the same will be a bailable offence as per the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The reason is that a person accused of a bailable offence is entitled to bail as a matter of right. Therefore, the present petition is not maintainable and the same is dismissed by the court.

Written by- Sushant Kumar Sharma

Click here to view judgement

3 Sep

An Analysis of Begging as an offence in India.

Prime Legal

Articles #Begging, #Constitution, #crime, #Exploitation, #Fundamental Rights, #laws, #Trafficking

Abstract:

There is no central law in India that criminalizes begging. In India 22 states and union territories have their own anti-begging laws. These laws vary from state to state, but they generally make it an offence to beg in public places. The Bombay Prevention of Begging Act, 1959, is the most common anti-begging law in India. This law defines begging as “the act of proffering, or soliciting or receiving alms in a public place”. It also makes it an offence to employ a beggar or to abet begging. The anti-begging laws have been challenged in court on the grounds that they violate the fundamental rights of beggars. The Supreme Court has ruled that the laws are constitutional, but only if they are implemented in a fair and just manner. In practice, the anti-begging laws are often used to harass and discriminate against beggars. Beggars are often arrested and detained without trial, and they may be forced to undergo rehabilitation programs that are not in their best interests.

Keywords: Begging, Exploitation, Trafficking, Fundamental rights.

Introduction:

Begging is the practice of imploring others to grant a favour, often a gift of money, with zero expectation of reciprocation. A person doing such is called a beggar or panhandler. Beggars may operate in public places such as transport routes, urban parks, and markets. Besides money, they may also ask for food, drink, cigarettes or other small items. In India, begging is a complex issue with a long history. It is estimated that there are over 500,000 beggars in India, and the problem is particularly acute in urban areas. There are many reasons why people beg, including poverty, disability, mental illness, and addiction. The Indian government has enacted a number of laws to regulate begging, but these laws have been criticized for being ineffective and for violating the fundamental rights of beggars. The Bombay Prevention of Begging Act, 1959, for example, makes it a crime to beg in public places. This law has been challenged in court and has been found to be unconstitutional. There are a number of reasons why begging is illegal in India. One reason is that it is seen as a form of vagrancy and a social nuisance. Begging can also be a form of exploitation, with beggars often being forced to beg by their pimps or traffickers. Additionally, begging can be a threat to public health, as beggars may be carrying diseases or parasites. The penalties for begging under the Bombay Prevention of Begging Act vary depending on the circumstances. If a beggar is found begging for the first time, they may be warned or fined. If they are found begging a second time, they may be imprisoned for up to three months or fined up to Rs. 500. If they are found begging a third time, they may be imprisoned for up to one year or fined up to Rs. 1,000. There are a number of ways to address the issue of begging in India. One way is to provide social welfare programs that can help to prevent people from becoming beggars in the first place. Another way is to crack down on the exploitation of beggars by their pimps or traffickers. Additionally, public awareness campaigns can be used to discourage people from giving money to beggars. It is important to note that begging is not always a sign of poverty or desperation. In some cases, people may beg as a way to make a living or to support their families. Begging can also be a symptom of deeper social problems, such as poverty, unemployment, and lack of education. It is important to remember that beggars are human beings who deserve our compassion and understanding. We should not criminalize begging, but we should work to address the root causes of poverty and social exclusion that force people to beg in the first place.

Constitution and Begging:

The Constitution of India does not explicitly mention begging. There are a few provisions in the Constitution that could be interpreted to prohibit begging.

Article 23(1) prohibits forced labour and other forms of exploitation. This could be interpreted to include begging, as it can be seen as a form of exploitation.
Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. This could be interpreted to mean that the government cannot force people to beg.
Article 39(e) and (f) of the Directive Principles of State Policy state that the state shall direct its policy towards securing that the citizens, men and women equally, have the right to adequate means of livelihood, and that the health and strength of workers, men and women, and the tender age of children are not abused and that citizens are not forced by economic necessity to enter avocations unsuited to their age or strength. This could be interpreted to mean that the government should take steps to address the root causes of begging, such as poverty and unemployment.

The anti-begging laws in India are based on these constitutional provisions. These laws vary from state to state, but they generally make it an offense to beg in public places. The penalties for begging can include imprisonment, fines, and/or detention in a beggars’ home. The constitutionality of the anti-begging laws has been challenged in court several times. In some cases, the courts have upheld the laws, while in other cases they have struck them down. The Supreme Court has not yet ruled definitively on the constitutionality of the anti-begging laws.

Why Begging Should be Criminalized.

Begging is seen as a public nuisance.Beggars can be seen as a nuisance to the public, as they can block sidewalks, traffic, and public spaces. They can also be seen as a threat to public safety, as they may be associated with crime or violence.
Begging can be exploitative.Some beggars are forced to beg by others, such as pimps or traffickers. These people may take advantage of the beggars’ vulnerability and force them to work in dangerous or exploitative conditions.
Begging can discourage people from seeking help.Some people may be reluctant to seek help from social services if they are afraid of being arrested for begging. This can make it more difficult for people to get the help they need to escape poverty and homelessness.
Criminalizing begging can help to reduce poverty. By making begging illegal, the government can discourage people from resorting to begging as a way to make money. This can help to reduce poverty by encouraging people to find more productive ways to earn a living.

Why Begging Should be Decriminalized.

It violates the right to life.The Constitution of India guarantees the right to life to all citizens. Criminalizing begging puts people in a difficult situation where they have to choose between begging and starving. This is a violation of their right to life.
It is ineffective in addressing the root causes of begging.Begging is often a symptom of poverty, lack of education, and mental illness. Criminalizing begging does not address these underlying issues. In fact, it can make them worse by making it more difficult for people to get the help they need.
It is cruel and unusual punishment.Arresting and imprisoning people for begging is cruel and unusual punishment. These people are often already struggling to survive, and being arrested and imprisoned will only make their situation worse.
It diverts resources away from more effective solutions.The money that is spent on arresting, imprisoning, and detaining beggars could be better spent on providing them with food, shelter, education, and mental health care. These are the things that will actually help them to get out of poverty and become self-sufficient.

Alternatives rather than criminalizing begging:

Providing social welfare programs.The government can provide food, shelter, education, and healthcare to people who are struggling to make ends meet. This will help to reduce the number of people who are forced to beg.
Creating job opportunities.The government can create jobs and training programs to help people to get back on their feet. This will give them the opportunity to earn a living and support themselves.
Providing mental health care.Many beggars are suffering from mental illness. The government can provide them with access to mental health care so that they can get the treatment they need.

Ram Lakhan vs State (Delhi High Court)

Facts:

The case involved Ram Lakhan, who was convicted of begging under Section 3 of the Bombay Prevention of Begging Act, 1959. He challenged his conviction on the ground that the Act was unconstitutional as it violated his fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Issues:

Whether the Bombay Prevention of Begging Act, 1959 is unconstitutional as it violates the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution of India?
Whether the mere act of begging can be said to be a crime?
Whether the court can order the detention of a beggar in a certified institution without giving him an opportunity to be heard?

Judgment:

The Delhi High Court held that the Bombay Prevention of Begging Act, 1959 is unconstitutional as it violates the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court held that the mere act of begging cannot be said to be a crime. The Court also held that the court cannot order the detention of a beggar in a certified institution without giving him an opportunity to be heard.

Conclusion:

The decision of the Delhi High Court in Ram Lakhan v. State is a landmark judgment that has had a significant impact on the law of begging in India. The judgment has helped to protect the fundamental rights of beggars and ensure that they are not subjected to arbitrary detention.

Discussion:

Beggars are often seen as dirty and diseased, and they can be a source of annoyance to pedestrians and motorists. Additionally, beggars can sometimes be aggressive in their solicitation of alms, which can make people feel unsafe. Many beggars are forced to beg by their families or pimps, and they are often not given any of the money they collect. Additionally, begging can be a form of child labour, as many children are forced to beg on the streets. Making begging a criminal offense can deter people from begging and encourage them to find other ways to support themselves. Begging is often a symptom of a larger problem, such as poverty or mental illness. Criminalizing begging does not address the root causes of the problem and may actually make it worse. Making begging a criminal offense canstigmatize beggars and make it even more difficult for them to get the help they need. There is a risk of police abuse if begging is made a criminal offense. Police officers may be tempted to use excessive force against beggars, especially if they are poor or marginalized. Beggars are often seen as dirty and diseased, and they can be a source of annoyance to pedestrians and motorists. Additionally, beggars can sometimes be aggressive in their solicitation of alms, which can make people feel unsafe. Many beggars are forced to beg by their families or pimps, and they are often not given any of the money they collect. Additionally, begging can be a form of child labour, as many children are forced to beg on the streets. There are a number of laws and policies in place in India aimed at preventing and rehabilitating beggars. The National Policy for the Elimination of Beggary, 2014, provides a framework for the government to address the issue of begging. The policy aims to provide education, skills training, and employment opportunities to beggars, as well as to provide them with shelter and medical care. The government has also set up a number of rehabilitation centers for beggars. These centers provide beggars with food, shelter, clothing, and medical care. They also provide beggars with education and skills training, so that they can find employment and become self-sufficient. Despite the efforts of the government, begging remains a problem in India. There are a number of challenges to addressing the issue of begging, including poverty, illiteracy, and lack of employment opportunities. The government is committed to eliminating begging, and it is working to develop more effective policies and programs to address this issue.

In my opinion, making begging a criminal offense is not the best way to address the issue. Begging is a symptom of a larger problem, and criminalizing it does not address the root causes. Instead, the government should focus on providing social welfare programs and services to help people who are struggling to make ends meet. This would help to reduce the number of people who are forced to beg and make it easier for those who are already begging to get the help they need.

Conclusion:

The question of the legality of begging is complex and there are strong arguments on both sides. Some people argue that begging is a form of exploitation and that the government has a responsibility to protect people from it. Others argue that begging is a form of free expression and that the government should not interfere with it. Ultimately, the question of whether or not begging is a crime is a matter of public policy. The government will need to weigh the various factors involved, such as the rights of beggars, the needs of the community, and the effectiveness of the anti-begging laws, in order to make a decision. Instead of criminalizing begging, the Indian government should focus on addressing the root causes of poverty and social exclusion. This includes providing financial assistance to poor people, providing job training and placement services, and providing mental health services. The government should also crack down on trafficking and other forms of exploitation that force people to beg. The government of India is committed to addressing the issue and providing assistance to beggars. With continued effort it is possible to eliminate begging in India and improve the lives of those who are currently forced to beg.

References:

https://restthecase.com/knowledge-bank/anti-begging-laws-in-india#:~:text=Begging%20is%20not%20a%20crime,found%20begging%20in%20public%20places.

https://knowlaw.in/index.php/2022/10/21/is-beggary-a-crime/

https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-13009-criminalization-of-begging-in-india.html

https://www.hindustantimes.com/editorials/the-supreme-court-is-right-on-begging-101627471711972.html

https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-news-analysis/decriminalising-begging

https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-1367-beggary-laws-in-india-a-constitutional-analysis.html

https://socialwelfare.delhi.gov.in/social/beggary-prevention

http://www.arthapedia.in/index.php/Begging

https://www.iasparliament.com/current-affairs/striking-down-of-beggary-act

https://www.dhyeyaias.com/current-affairs/perfect-7-magazine/beggary-in-india

137 (2007) DLT 173.