URBAN CLEANSING OR SOCIAL JUSTICE? ANALYSING HOUSING FIRST AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO ANTI-BEGGARY POLICIES

Introduction

“A society that sees legislating inequality and homelessness into invisibility has unquestionably lost its way”

The historically oppressed classes have resorted to beggary since time immemorial. Unfortunately, it is a social scenario that India has yet to eradicate. Envisioning a system of eradication, various states have passed laws criminalising beggary. Although, as noted by a commission report, these laws have not succeeded in abolishing beggary.

Despite the Supreme Court declining to criminalize beggary, and classifying it as an “elitist approach”, states are still adopting and enforcing such policies. Recently, Indore has announced that from 1st January 2025, anyone who aids beggary by handing them money would land an FIR against them with harsh penalization. Although, as noted by Ministry Reports, while such measures result in temporary reductions, it is ineffective in the long run as it does not provide real long-term solutions.

This article is a critique of the present regime of criminalizing vagrancy. The author first analyses the domestic jurisprudence on criminalizing poverty, drawing a line of argument that the law lies against its criminalization. Secondly, the author puts forth a critique of this proposal, arguing that such policies tend to further marginalize classes and burden them unfairly for their socio-economic conditions without adequate recourse for their upliftment, often resulting in a vicious cycle of exclusion and deviance. Lastly, the author offers an alternative by way of the Housing First policy and argues that this would both reduce beggary and offer restorative justice to marginalized classes.

Domestic Jurisprudence

The Bombay Prevention of Begging Act was a seminal legislation that criminalized vagrancy in 1959. Various states have since then, modelled their frameworks on this act. However, the Delhi High Court (“HC”) in Harsh Mander v. Union of India has decriminalized begging and struck down provisions of the Act as unconstitutional. The court noted that arresting and detaining persons for circumstances which they cannot prevent is a blatant violation of Article 21. Additionally, the court noted that the restriction placed by criminalization encloses their right to communicate, thereby infringing upon Article 19. The act also violated the Right to Equality as it failed to distinguish between beggars and individuals that may fit the ideal of a beggar, such as street-side artists or vendors.

Similarly, the J&K HC in Suhail Rashid Bhat v. State of J&K & Ors has struck down the state Act criminalizing beggary. The court rightfully observed that this legislation was moulded from prejudiced social constructs that were disproportionately aimed at agendas of exclusion and invisibility. The court further observed that it infringed on Article 14 as the definition of a beggar was vague and overbroad, aiming to criminalize people for who they are rather than what they do.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court in 2021 also dismissed a PIL to restrict beggars from begging, noting that doing so would result in following an “elitist approach.” The court observed the socio-economic roots of the problem and observed that temporary injunctions such as criminalization would be just that, temporary. The international standpoint also mimics the decriminalization of beggary, with the European Court of Human Rights adjudicating upon the issue twice, both militating against criminalization.

The judicial resistance to criminalizing beggary stems from a recognition that such measures amount to penalizing individuals for systemic failures rather than personal culpability. This emphasis draws a line of argument that the law must function as an instrument of empowerment rather than exclusion. The legal stance against criminalization calls for a paradigm shift in policy, urging a focus on inclusive and humane alternatives.

A Critique of the Legal-realist Approach

As noted by Justice Gita Mittal, Beggary is a manifestation of the state’s lack of socioeconomic justice in ensuring minimum entitlements such as the Right to Shelter, food, and humane conditions of survival. That is, persons engaging in begging are compelled to do so by their circumstances, rather than hedonistic motivations.

The legal realist argues that there is a plethora of socio-economic factors that go into judicial decision making. Although, this correlation applies to all administrative decisions as well. In the present scenario, anti-begging policies are formulated by persons who cannot comprehend the socio-economic conditions faced by beggars but, ironically, have full control over their conditions of living. Consequently, these policies are built on prejudiced social constructs of exclusion and invisibility, rather than the ideal values of criminal justice - restoration and rehabilitation.

The criminalization of begging does not fulfil the prerequisite of the harm principle, thereby fallaciously criminalising a state of being rather than tangible harmful behaviour. The administration has taken an inadequacy in state justice, which is a social issue, not a criminal issue and resorted to criminalization, without exploring alternative paths of rehabilitation and thereby eradicating the root causes of beggary.

A penal abolitionist reduction of the present model of criminalizing beggary indicates that enforcing such orders grossly fails to address the root cause of the societal issue, which makes such policies redundant and fruitlessly leads to a vicious cycle of begging. This essentially functions as a form of ‘performative governance’ rather than effective governance, perpetuating systemic inequalities and leading to further marginalization. This inclines towards anti-begging policies being designed to clean up urban spaces by way of exclusion and invisibility, rather than for penalizing harm done to others.

The Exclusion of Elitist Labelling

As anti-beggary legislation grossly fails to offer rehabilitative justice, they are often premised on the notion of symbolic criminalization, where the law is enacted for symbolic purposes rather than practical outcomes. In this case, the symbolism being cleaning up urban areas from the visibility of the underprivileged. For example, Section 2a(iii) and §2a(iv) of the J&K legislation classifies a beggar as anyone who displays “any sore, wound, injury, deformity or disease whether of human being or an animal” and “having no visible means of subsistence and wandering about or remaining in any public place.” This flawed and elitist approach adopted by various legislations in criminalizing a beggar based on observable physical traits rather than harmful actions is an emphatic representation of such legislations being formulated to marginalize the subalterns and make beggars invisible rather than rehabilitate them or address their issues.

The labelling theory holds that once a person is labelled a criminal for their socioeconomic factors such as beggary, this would entrench their exclusion from mainstream society. The theory holds that once the label is employed, they suffer from further negative stereotypes attached to the deviant label, which enables and reinforces their retreat to a life of criminalization. The resultant scenario also falls prey to the broken window theory, which holds that visible signs of disorder would encourage further criminal behaviour. This creates a vicious cycle of marginalization and deviance, (in)advertently reinforcing the elitist want of exclusion and invisibility.

Housing First: A Potential Solution

The Housing First policy is a scheme targeted at reducing poverty and homelessness, employed in jurisdictions which include Finland, Denmark, Spain and France. This policy provides housing as a prerequisite or the first step to eradicating beggary for each person requiring it. Thereafter, persons are given requisite support for their ailments or unemployment. Built upon the principle that shelter must be a matter of right, the central tenet premising this policy is that individuals need not adhere to a standard of being ‘housing ready’ to receive housing from the state, leading to inclusion from persons that have been historically excluded and thereby an internal increase in self-esteem. This model further restores the independence given to the excluded by allowing them to choose the structure within which they receive their support. This sense of permanency further allows them the opportunity to focus on the non-shelter problems they face.

Studies have found that participants of the Housing First policy show significant improvement in their physical and mental health within the first 12 months. Participants are also recorded to have better community integration and quality of life scores after gaining housing. In Lisbon, evidence indicates that the policy has aided in a 52% reduction in participants admitted to psychiatric hospitals over a 3-year period. A statistical appraisal of the policy’s implementation in the UK shows that over 105,900 households were recorded as being able to sustain their permanent housing. Jurisdictions such as France and Brisbane, Australia, have fostered 85% and 95% housing retention within one year. In comparison to Treatment First policies, Housing First has witnessed an 88% reduction in homelessness, a testament to its work model.

Lastly, while this is ostensibly a cost-intensive policy, research has shown that the economic benefits of implementation outweigh the cost of implementation. Additionally, this policy seems especially beneficial in India as these persons have been repeatedly excluded by caste and religious shadows and often told to be undeserving of societal resources. This solidifies the argument that following the housing first approach in a society riddled with marginalization like that of India would lead to a reduction in poverty and homelessness.

Conclusion

The Housing First policy provides a more humane and effective social response to India’s persistent problem of beggary than criminalization. By addressing the root causes of homelessness and poverty, it shifts the focus from punitive measures to restorative justice. The model ensures that marginalized individuals are provided with stable housing as a basic right, enabling them to rebuild their lives with dignity. Stable shelter and tailored support foster dignity, self-sufficiency, and inclusion among marginalized individuals.

In a country like India, where beggary is often intertwined with historical injustices such as caste-based and economic marginalization, Housing First offers an inclusive approach that fosters societal integration rather than exclusion. In embracing this policy, India can move away from performative governance and toward a compassionate and effective response to poverty, setting a precedent for long-term societal upliftment and equity.