Bangladesh’s legal stance on beggars and homeless individuals has a troubled history, marked by the shadows of colonial tyranny and misguided policies. The roots of such oppression were planted during the Bengal famine of 1943, where almost three million lives were lost. Although they claimed drought as the cause of the famine, it was later found that the 1943 famine was not an accident but a consequence of flawed governance by Winston Churchill. Nevertheless, in
response to this crisis, the elite colonial administrators enacted the Bengal Vagrancy Act 1943 to address the aftermath of the famine. It was a tool for extermination, to sanitize the then-modernizing Calcutta City rather than the rehabilitation of homeless vagrants. The 1943 Act demonstrated a callous disregard for human rights, revealing an intent to eliminate the homeless rather than uplift and rehabilitate them.
After the independence of Bangladesh in 1971, the Vagrancy Act (Bengal Act) 1943 persisted within Bangladesh’s legal framework, drawing condemnation from human rights activists. Finally, in 2011 the government responded with The Vagrant and Shelterless Person (Rehabilitation) Act, heralded as a replacement for the draconian 1943 law. Unfortunately, this new legislation, on closer inspection, appears to be nothing more than a rebranded version of its predecessor. The 2011 Act not only criminalizes begging but also grants law enforcement the unchecked authority to apprehend vagrants at any time, detaining them for up to seven days without justification. Moreover, most of the regional police legislations also criminalize begging, such as section 81 of the Dhaka Metropolitan Police Ordinance 1976. These provisions mirror the colonial agenda of purging the impoverished from the streets, echoing a troubling history. Furthermore, the 2011 Act empowers police and judicial officials to apprehend suspected “vagrants” and house them in rehabilitation facilities for a maximum of two years. A provision that might sound like a step towards rehabilitation is tainted by the potential for abuse and the absence of due process. Inmates who attempt to break free face a maximum sentence of three
months in jail, creating a cycle of punishment rather than genuine rehabilitation.
The Act also envisions using funds earned by inmates to support the rehabilitation program, but the efficacy and the ethics of this approach remain dubious. It raises questions about the sustainability of a system that relies on the labour of vulnerable individuals who already face a myriad of challenges that extend beyond economic hardship. They are subjected to social stigma,discrimination, and sometimes, violence.
The absence of a stable source of income, shelter, and healthcare exacerbates their vulnerability, leaving them trapped in a cycle of poverty.The Bangladesh constitution guarantees the right to life, liberty, and equality among other fundamental rights. However, the very existence of laws criminalizing begging infringes upon these rights. The 2011 Act allows arbitrary detention and fails to provide due process, directly violating a series of constitutional provisions enshrined in articles 14(1), 15, 19(2), 26(1), 27, 28(1), 31, 32, 33(1). Internationally, judicial decisions have set precedents in recognizing and protecting the rights of beggars. In Harsh Mander and Anr v Union of India and Ors, the Delhi High Court in August 2018, decriminalized begging while declaring provisions of laws criminalizing begging as “unconstitutional” and struck them down. The court emphasized the need for a compassionate approach, urging the government to focus on rehabilitation rather than punitive measures.
One such compassionate approach can be seen in the Lăcătuș v Switzerland (2021)
case, where the European Court of Human Rights made an innovative move declaring begging a human rights issue for the first time because of the vulnerability of the woman fined for begging. In Bangladesh, in Ain o Salish Kendra (ASK) and BLAST vs Bangladesh and Others (2011) case, BLAST and ASK challenged the legitimacy of the government’s Beggar’s Rehabilitation and Alternative Employment Program, arguing that it violated fundamental rights and existing laws. The case highlighted the tension between social welfare programs and individual rights and remains pending reflecting the ongoing struggle to balance the protection of vulnerable populations with the implementation of government initiatives.
Bangladesh, as a member of the international community, has committed to upholding human rights standards. Despite these commitments, the existing legal framework in Bangladesh falls short of meeting these international standards. However, addressing the issue of beggary requires a multifaceted approach that goes beyond mere legal reforms. Durable solutions must encompass social, economic, and healthcare interventions. Rehabilitation programs should focus on skill development, mental health support, and community integration. This legal discussion emphasizes the importance of a rights-based approach rather than employing punitive measures when it comes to begging. Begging itself should not be considered a human right, however, a ban on begging in a poverty-stricken country results in human rights violations.
Lastly, revising the Act to align with international human rights standards and
creating a culture of empathy and understanding is not just a legal obligation, it is a moral imperative that reflects equality, justice and non-discrimination. As the government makes efforts to solve the problem of begging, commendable initiatives such as Ekti Bari, Ekti Khamar (One House, One Farm) should be promoted instead of criminalizing the victims of immense poverty. However, punitive measures should be used against criminally organized beggar gangs who exploit the vulnerable.
Hasan Muhammad Roman works as Assistant Professor at the Department of Law, University of Chittagong.