Dr.Kalidas Shinde
M.S.W, M.Phil(TISS),Ph.D(TISS)
Link
MY ONLINE PHD THESIS
https://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/handle/10603/214716
M.S.W, M.Phil(TISS),Ph.D(TISS)
Link
MY ONLINE PHD THESIS
https://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/handle/10603/214716
Wednesday, November 6, 2019
Wednesday, February 27, 2019
Central OBC LIST GR FOR MAHARSHTRA
http://www.ncbc.nic.in/User_Panel/GazetteResolution.aspx?Value=mPICjsL1aLsN%2bCCWgSsv8%2buAyaBuDqnRoSLrvXbEEJTY%2by0eazrlMjhC5BUvBdUU
Wednesday, February 13, 2019
Books in Marathi on Maharashtra State Legal Services Maharashtra Rajya Vidhi seva Pradhikaran
Books of
Maharashtra State Legal Services
https://legalservices.maharashtra.gov.in/Site/Upload/Pdf/posters.pdf
https://legalservices.maharashtra.gov.in/Site/Upload/Pdf/Book-Three.pdf
Thursday, January 3, 2019
Sunday, December 30, 2018
My PhD Thesis Chapter 1 on Marginalisation of Denotified-Nomadic Tribes in India in SHODHAGANGA
http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/214716/11/11_chapter%201.pdf
Friday, December 14, 2018
KALIDAS SHINDE: ARTICLE ON RAINPADA MOB VIOLENCE AGAINST 'NATH PAN...
KALIDAS SHINDE: ARTICLE ON RAINPADA MOB VIOLENCE AGAINST 'NATH PAN...: WIRED: "How WhatsApp Fuels Fake News and Violence in India" https://www.wired.com/story/how-whatsapp-fuels-fake-news-and-vi...
ARTICLE ON RAINPADA MOB VIOLENCE AGAINST 'NATH PANTHI DAVARI GOSAVI' IN US BASED JOURNAL WIRED
WIRED: "How WhatsApp Fuels Fake News and Violence in India"
https://www.wired.com/story/how-whatsapp-fuels-fake-news-and-violence-in-india/?mbid=email_onsiteshare
Wednesday, September 26, 2018
Thursday, August 30, 2018
My Poem on Rainpada Lynchings
अर्पण
घटना 1 जुलै 2018 लाराईनपाडा धुळे, जिल्ह्याला
पाच लोकांची आहुती धर्माला
नाथधर्म जागवाला
साद बातमीला
जाग समाजाला
मोडलेल्या घडीला
घेराव पडे जिल्ह्याला
प्रेत सोडली माणदेशाला
पोलीस संरक्षण प्रेताला
हो प्रेताला
जितपणी नाय जीवाला
प्रेत रवाना खवे गावाला
जमला मायेचा पसारा
राजकारणी भेटीला
सरकार दम दाटीला
सगेसोयरे समाज त्या समयाला
त्या समयाला
कुटुंबाच्या आधाराला
आधार त्या समयाला
दिला हो दिला
हाक शासन माय बापाला
पोटच्या लेकराला
आईने दिली हो दिली
आक्रोश दाहिदिशाला
तोंडचा घास हो नेला
हो नेला
यातना जीवाला
जागा नाय कोण झाला
हो झाला
आदेश कलेक्टरला
कणव नाही सरकार मायबापाला
ताळमेळ नाही जमातीला
राजकारणी नेत्याला
बोळवण कागदाच्या तुकड्याला
समाज विचारे व्यवस्थाला
प्रश्न नाय पाच लोकांचा
जीव भयभीत झाला हो झाला
या घटनेला, या घटनेला
कशी लावू झोळी काखेला,
पोटासाठी भिक्षेला, जाऊ भिक्षेला
वचन नाथाच्या दीक्षेला
शैली शिंगी रुद्राक्ष माला
कानी मुद्रा, गुलाल कपळाला
डवर,त्रिशूल हाताला
अलख जग जागला
मरण नेमलं वाटलां
समाजाचा हत्याकांड झाला हो झाला
असा गुन्हा काय केला
पोटासाठी भिक्षा मागाला
जागा नाही स्मशानाला
अग्नी दिली माळ रानाला
मोर्च्या निघे नागपूरला
वेढा आणला महाराष्ट्राला
तालुका, जिल्ह्याला
आता खपवून घेणार
आक्रमण मागत्या धर्माला
थू त्या सोशल मीडियाला
खेळ मरणाचा मांडला
भडकवी जन माथ्याला
धोका निष्पाप जीवाला
मजा दुनियेला, शॉकींनाला
डिजिटल भारत झाला हो झाला
संशयाचं थैमान देशाला
अफवाच भूत उशाला
सरकार नुसतं आश्वासनाला
कित्येकांचा जीव असाच गेला
चोर सोडून फाशी संन्याशाला
सजा न केलेल्या गुह्याला
जमात लागली अरणीला
अश्रू आलं धरणीला
नाय दाद सरणाला
स्वतःच्या मरणाला
चाललो स्वतःच सरणं रचाला
जगतो घेऊन मरण उशाला
भटकंती पुजली पाचवीला
पोलीस पाठराखणीला
अख्खा जन्म यात गेला
वाली नाही कुणी झाला
जन्म येऊन वाया गेला
किती राजकारणी आला नी गेला
सत्ता पैसा घेऊन झोपे उशियाला
अन्न नाही पोटाला
सारा जग पिंजून हो आला
नाही ठिकाणा हो मिळाला
पशुपक्षी सम जीव झाला
संरक्षण प्राणी पक्षाला
नाही आमच्या जीवाला
गुलाम करी माणसाला
किंमत नाय जीवाला
कवडी मोल भटक्याला
७१ वर्ष शोधे निवाऱ्याला
जगे लोकांच्या आसऱ्याला
जीवाचा भरोसा धरणीमातेला
मागणी देशाला,
उपाशी पोटी संरक्षणाला
काम दे हाताला
सन्मान हवा संविधानाला
आमच्या जगण्याला
बास करा आयोगाला
न्याय द्या जन्माच्या भोगाला
आता कलंक नको कपाळाला
मुक्ती द्या भिक्षापात्राला
सांगतो आता जमातीला
जोग्याला
जागा हो या समयाला
नाहीतर हकनाक गेला
काळ येऊन ठेपला
जागो हो हाकेला
भिक्षापात्र संकटाला
प्रेरणा घे बाबाला,
शिका,संघटित व्हा,संघर्षाला
स्वप्न राजकर्ती जमातीला
आपलं हक्क मिळवाला
डॉ.कालिदास शिंदे
Thursday, August 16, 2018
DELHI HIGH COURT DECISION AND JUDGEMENT ON TRADITIONAL LIVELIHOOD OF NOMADIC TRIBES DEPEND ON BEGGING
http://lobis.nic.in/ddir/dhc/GMI/judgement/08-08-2018/GMI08082018CW104982009.pdf
http://lobis.nic.in/ddir/dhc/GMI/judgement/08-08-2018/GMI08082018CW104982009.pdf
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on : 7 th August, 2018
Date of decision : 8 th August, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 10498/2009 & CM APPL. 1837/2010
HARSH MANDER & ANR. ..... Petitioners Through : Mr. Colin Gonsalves, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Chaudhary Zia Ali Kabir, Ms. Pragya P Singh & Ms. Aditi Saxena, Advs. versus UOI & ORS. ..... Respondentss Through : Mr. Anil Soni, CGSC for UOI. Mr. Gautam Narayan, ASC, GNCTD with Ms. Mahamaya Chatterjee, Adv. + W.P.(C) 1630/2015 KARNIKA SAWHNEY ..... Petitioner Through : Mr BB Sawhney, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Indira Sawhney, Mr. Vaibhav Mishra, Yogendar Singh, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents Through : Ms. Monika Arora, Adv. with Mr. Harsh Ahuja, Adv. for UOI. Mr. Gautam Narayan, ASC, GNCTD with Ms. Mahamaya Chatterjee, Adv. W.P.(C)Nos.10498/2009 & 1630/2015 Page 2 of 23
CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR JUDGMENT GITA MITTAL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
“…A society that sees legislating inequality and homelessness into invisibility has unquestionably lost its way…” - An article in The Guardian
1. These writ petitions challenge the constitutionality and validity of all sections, except Section 11, of the Bombay Prevention of Begging Act, 1959 (hereafter referred to as the ‘Act’), as extended to the Union Territory of Delhi (now the NCT of Delhi) vide G.S.R. No. 638 dated 2nd June, 1960, published in the Gazette of India, pt. II, Section 3(i), dated 11th June, 1960 on the ground that it violates the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India.
2. For the purposes of effective adjudication of the issue, we may advert to the scheme of the enactment.
3. Section 2(1) (i) thereof defines “Begging”.
Section 4(1) allows the police to arrest the beggar without a warrant.
Section 5 of the Act enables a summary enquiry by the court following which the person may be detained in a certified institution. Section 6 contemplates punishment for a person who had been previously detained in a W.P.(C)Nos.10498/2009 & 1630/2015 Page 3 of 23 Certified Institution under the act, upon his being found begging. The remaining provisions of Section 6 provide the quantum of detention or imprisonment, based on the repetition of convictions. 4. Significantly, Section 11 of the act provides a penalty for employing or causing persons to beg or using them for the purpose of begging. 5. The relevant statutory provisions deserve to be extracted W.P.(C)Nos.10498/2009 & 1630/2015 Page 4 of 23 xxx xxx xxx 4. Power to require person found begging to appear before Court.— (1) Any police officer, or other person authorised in this behalf in accordance with rules made by the State Government, may arrest without a warrant any person who is found begging: Provided that, no person entering on any private premises for the purpose of soliciting or receiving alms shall be so arrested or shall be liable to any proceedings under this Act, except upon a complaint by the occupier of the premises. (2) Such police officer or other person shall take or send the person so arrested to a Court. (3) The provisions of Section 61 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (V of 1898), shall apply to every arrest under this section, and the officer in charge of the police station or section shall cause the arrested person to be kept in the prescribed manner until he can be brought before a Court. xxx xxx xxx 5. Summary inquiry in respect of persons found begging and their detention.— (1) Where a person who is brought before the court under the last preceding section is not proved to have previously been detained in a Certified Institution under the provisions of this Act, the Court shall make a summary inquiry, in the prescribed manner, as regards the allegation that he was found begging. (2) If the inquiry referred to in sub-section (1) cannot be completed forthwith, the court may adjourn it from time to time and order the person to be remanded to such place and custody as may be convenient. (3) If on making the inquiry referred to in sub-section (1), the court is not satisfied that the person was found begging, it shall order; that such person be released forthwith. W.P.(C)Nos.10498/2009 & 1630/2015 Page 5 of 23 (4) If on making the inquiry referred to in sub-section (1), the court is satisfied that such person was found begging, it shall record a finding that the person is a beggar. (5) If a person is found to be a beggar under the last preceding sub-section, the Court shall declare him to be a beggar and may— (a) if the Court is satisfied from the circumstances of the case that the person is not likely to beg again, admonish and release the beggar on his or any other person whom Court considers suitable, executing a bond, with or without surety as the Court may require, requiring the beggar to abstain from begging and to be of good behaviour; or (b) if the Court is of opinion that the person is not likely to give up begging, by order direct such person to report himself forthwith to the Commissioner of Police or the District Magistrate having jurisdiction in the area and shall forward a copy of such order to the Commissioner of Police or, as the case may be, the District Magistrate; or (c) order the beggar to be detained in a Certified Institution for a period of not less than one year, but not more than three years.] (6) In passing any order under the provisions of this Act, 2 [the court may] have regard to the following considerations, that is to say— (a) the age and character of the beggar, (b) the circumstances and conditions in which the beggar was living, (c) reports made by the Probation Officer, and (d) such other matters as may, in the opinion of the court, require to be taken into consideration in the interest of the beggar. (7) The report of the Probation Officer or any other report considered by the court under the sub-section immediately preceding, shall be treated as confidential: W.P.(C)Nos.10498/2009 & 1630/2015 Page 6 of 23 Provided that if such report relates to the character, health or conduct of, or the circumstances and conditions in which, the beggar is living, the court may, if it thinks expedient, communicate the substance thereof to the beggar or (in case of dependants) to the guardian concerned, and may give the beggar or the guardian, as the case may be, an opportunity of producing evidence which may be relevant to the matters stated in the report. (8) A copy of the order made under sub-section (5) shall be sent forthwith to the Chief Inspector. (9) Notwithstanding anything in this section, when the person found to be a beggar as aforesaid is a child, being a child who is not under the age of five years, the court shall forward him to a Juvenile Court, and shall not make any order under subsection (5). The Juvenile Court shall deal with the child under Section 40 of the Bombay Children Act, 1948 (Bom. LXXI of 1948), as if the child were a person described in clause (a) of that section. For the purpose of ascertaining the age of the person, the court may, if necessary, cause the beggar to be examined by a medical officer. xxx xxx xxx 6. Penalty for begging after detention as beggar.— (1) Whoever, having been previously detained in a Certified Institution under this Act is found begging, shall on conviction be punished as hereinafter in this section provided. (2) When a person is convicted for the first time under subsection (1) the Court shall order him to be detained in a Certified Institution for a period of not less than two years and not more than three years. (3) When a person is convicted for the second or subsequent time under sub-section (1), the court shall order him to be detained for a period of ten years in a Certified Institution, and may convert any period of such detention (not exceeding two years) into a sentence of imprisonment extending to a like period. W.P.(C)Nos.10498/2009 & 1630/2015 Page 7 of 23 xxx xxx xxx 11. Penalty for employing or causing persons to beg or using them for purposes of begging.— Whoever employs or causes, any person to solicit or receive alms, or whoever having the custody, charge or care of a child, connives at or encourages the employment or the causing of a child to solicit, or receive alms or whoever uses another person as an exhibit for the purpose of begging, shall on conviction be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years but which shall not be less than one year.” 6. So far as the opposition of the respondents is concerned, Mr. Anil Soni, ld. Standing Counsel, Govt. of India, has placed a counter affidavit before us dated 28th November, 2017 stating as follows:- “8. ...Begging should not be a crime if it is done because of poverty. However, in order to ascertain whether it is being done out of poverty or willingly by a person even if he’/she is well off or has been forced into begging, it is necessary to detain him/her. Only after detention of such person and subsequent investigation, the cause of begging by an individual can be ascertained. Hence, the provision of detention as mentioned the Section in the Act is warranted.” (Emphasis by us) 7. Interestingly in para 9 of the counter affidavit, the respondents have further stated as follows: “9. ... as per the Seventh schedule of the Constitution of India and under Entry 9 of State List the subject matter of Relief of disabled and employable come under the purview of State List. As per Entry 6 of State List, issue related to Public Health and sanitation, hospital and dispensaries is a State subject.” W.P.(C)Nos.10498/2009 & 1630/2015 Page 8 of 23 8. So far as expanse of anti-beggary legislations is concerned, in para 10 of the counter affidavit, it is submitted that 20 States and 2 Union Territories have either enacted their own legislations or adopted the legislations adopted by other states. 9. Before considering the statutory provisions, we may extract the Preamble of the Act, which gives the object and purpose of the enactment in the following terms: “An Act to consolidate and amend the law relating to beggars for the purpose of making uniform and better provision for the prevention of begging in the State of Bombay and for matters connected therewith. Where it is expedient to make uniform and better provision for the prevention of begging in the State of Bombay; for the detention, training and employment of beggars and their dependents in certain institutions; for the custody, trial and punishment of beggar offenders; and for these and other purposes to consolidate and amend the law relating to beggars” 10. The petitioner has urged several grounds relating to Articles 14, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India on the basis of which the law ought to be struck down as being ultra vires thereof. 11. The petitioners have filed their submissions. Mr. Gautam Narayan. ld ASC has undertaken the exercise of summarizing the submissions into a brief note. We may extract the necessary limbs of the submissions filed by the petitioners, on which the constitutional challenge stands:- “2. Violates Article 14 – Right to equality 2.1 Section 2(1)(i)(a) violates Article 14 in as much as it does not make any distinction between persons who solicit W.P.(C)Nos.10498/2009 & 1630/2015 Page 9 of 23 or receive money for authorized purposes and those who are singing, dancing, or engaged in similar activities. further, pretence is a very vague terms for the police to take action on beggary. xxx xxx xxx 3. Article 19(1)(a) – Freedom of speech and expression 3.1 Petitioner submits that (a) soliciting is a verbal request and is covered under the right to free speech and expression (Jolly Jose Varghese v. Bank of Cochin AIR 1980 Sc 470) and (b) the Act imposes unreasonable restrictions on the right in the interests of public order, decency and morality. The Act imposes unreasonable restrictions on (i) soliciting and (ii) expressing poverty and vulnerability. xxx xxx xxx 5. Arbitrary application of law 5.1 While the Act unjustly restricts the movement of beggars, the application of the Act also limits the movement of a large number of no-beggars. Interviews with lawyers providing legal aid have revealed that 74% of persons arrested were from the informal labour sector such as those employed in small hotels, markets and construction, and 45% were homeless. It was observed that beggars were unaware of the reasons of arrest and were taken to the Beggars Court at the pretext of doing some work like cleaning. xxx xxx xxx 8. Article 21 – Right to life 8.1 It is well settled that the right to life is the right to live with dignity and with necessities of life required for it. The petitioner submits that this right includes the right to take steps including begging to survive and keep body and W.P.(C)Nos.10498/2009 & 1630/2015 Page 10 of 23 mind together (Gopalanachari v. State of Kerala AIR 1981 SC 674), Criminalisation of begging by the Act deprives a parson of the right to obtain basic necessities of life. The Act further requires people to make an unreasonable choice between committing a crime to be rehabilitated or not commit the crime and starve which goes against the spirit of the Constitution and violates Article 21.” 12. The question, placed before is simple. In our constitutional framework that promises every person the right to live with dignity, can the State criminalize begging? The social contract between the citizen and the State is a contract by which in exchange for the citizen ceding her autonomy partially, the State promises her security over her person and a life with dignity. 13. In our constitutional framework, this is guaranteed by Part III which enjoins the State not only to protect life but also to advance it, and Part IV which mandates that the State shall allocate resources so as to further the common good. In short the constitution envisages the vision of a society that is humane, just and fair. 14. So far as the threshold of a constitutional challenge i W.P.(C)Nos.10498/2009 & 1630/2015 Page 11 of 23 legislation. This being the case, there is no rational distinction between the two types of legislation when it comes to this ground of challenge under Article 14. The test of manifest arbitrariness, therefore, as laid down in the aforesaid judgments would apply to invalidate legislation as well as subordinate legislation under Article 14. Manifest arbitrariness, therefore, must be something done by the legislature capriciously, irrationally and/or without adequate determining principle. Also, when something is done which is excessive and disproportionate, such legislation would be manifestly arbitrary. We are, therefore, of the view that arbitrariness in the sense of manifest arbitrariness as pointed out by us above would apply to negate legislation as well under Article 14.” (Emphasis by us) 15. It is our view that law does not make any distinction between types of begging i.e. voluntary or involuntary as has been urged by the petitioners. The absence of any such distinction exposes the statute to a judicial evaluation on the ground of being arbitrary. 16. On the contrary, the comprehensiveness of the definition of begging in Section 2(1) (i), appears to indicate a legislative intent to cover a broad area, including in its sweep, all types of begging. It has also been pointed out that the respondents are using homelessness and begging synonymously and are in fact detaining the homeless as if they were begging and implementing the penal provision of the act qua them. 17. This in our view is manifestly arbitrary. 18. In this process, the State would be detaining persons who are not engaged in begging, such persons may be daily wagers and/or W.P.(C)Nos.10498/2009 & 1630/2015 Page 12 of 23 having family members to support. As a result of the detention of the bread earner of the family, the entire family may be reduced to financial deprivation and penury. Such can never be the object, spirit and intendment of a welfare state by way of what is touted as a social benefit legislation. 19. For these reasons, we find Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the statute to be unconstitutional for being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 20. We also find that the explanation of the respondents that a persons has to be detained to ascertain the cause of poverty is in the teeth of the rights of such persons accorded under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The explanation given by the respondent is that as a result, the respondents would be arresting persons who may be subsequently found to have not been begging, thereby, depriving such persons of their liberty without following any process of law. This is also completely impermissible. 21. Some essential concomitants and contours of Article 21 of the Constitution of India guaranteeing Right to Life have been elucidated and expounded upon by the Supreme Court of India. This includes inter alia the right to shelter, education, healthcare and clean environment. We consider these judicial pronouncements hereafter. 22. The Supreme Court has emphasised that food, clothing and shelter constitute the essential needs of every human being in (1990) 1 SCC 520 Shantistar Builders v. Narayan Khimalal Totame the Supreme Court held thus: W.P.(C)Nos.10498/2009 & 1630/2015 Page 13 of 23 “9. Basic needs of man have traditionally been accepted to be three — food, clothing and shelter. The right to life is guaranteed in any civilized society. That would take within its sweep the right to food, the right to clothing, the right to decent environment and a reasonable accommodation to live in. The difference between the need of an animal and a human being for shelter has to be kept in view. For the animal it is the bare protection of the body; for a human being it has to be a suitable accommodation which would allow him to grow in every aspect — physical, mental and intellectual. The Constitution aims at ensuring fuller development of every child. That would be possible only if the child is in a proper home. It is not necessary that every citizen must be ensured of living in a well-built comfortable house but a reasonable home particularly for people in India can even be mud-built thatched house or a mud-built fire-proof accommodation.” (Emphasis by us) 23. The right of education as flowing from Article 21 was recognised in a judgment report at (1993) 1 SCC 645 Unni Krishnan J.P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, the Supreme Court held as follows: “226. xxx 1. The citizens of this country have a fundamental right to education. The said right flows from Article 21. This right is, however, not an absolute right. Its content and parameters have to be determined in the light of Articles 45 and 41. In other words every child/citizen of this country has a right to free education until he completes the age of fourteen years. Thereafter his right to education is subject to the limits of economic capacity and development of the State. (Emphasis by us) W.P.(C)Nos.10498/2009 & 1630/2015 Page 14 of 23 24. This led to a Constitutional amendment and incorporation of Article 21A which provides the right to free and compulsory education for all children between the ages of 6 to 14, as a fundamental right. In pursuance to this, the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009 was enacted to implement the constitutional mandate. 25. In a case reported at (1997) 2 SCC 83 State of Punjab & Ors. v. Mohinder Singh Chawla & Ors., it was held that “[i]t is now settled law that right to health is integral to the right to life. Government has a constitutional obligation to provide health facilities”. 26. Protection of health of citizens, freedom and entitlement to live with human dignity with certain facilities was recognized in the judgment reported at AIR 1984 SC 802 Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs. Union of India & Ors. it was held as follows: “10. ... This right to live with human dignity enshrined in Article 21 derives its life breath from the Directive Principles of State Policy and particularly clauses (e) and (f) of Article 39 and Articles 41 and 42 and at the least, therefore, it must include protection of the health and strength of workers, men and women, and of the tender age of children against abuse, opportunities and facilities for children to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity, educational facilities, just and humane conditions of work and maternity relief. These are the minimum requirements which must exist in order to enable a person to live with human dignity and no State — neither the Central Government nor any State Government — has the right to take any action which will deprive a person of the enjoyment of these basic essentials.” (Emphasis by us) W.P.(C)Nos.10498/2009 & 1630/2015 Page 15 of 23 27. There can be no cavil that the above are the basic and primary needs of every human being. 28. It remains a hard reality that the State has not been able to ensure even the bare essentials of the right to life to all its citizens, even in Delhi. We find reports of starvation deaths in the newspapers and ensuring education to the 6 to 14 year old remains a challenge. 29. People beg on the streets not because they wish to, but because they need to. Begging is their last resort to subsistence, they have no other means to survive. Begging is a symptom of a disease, of the fact that the person has fallen through the socially created net. The government has the mandate to provide social security for everyone, to ensure that all citizens have basic facilities, and the presence of beggars is evidence that the state has not managed to provide these to all its citizens. 30. If we want to eradicate begging, artificial means to make beggars invisible will not suffice. A move to criminalize them will make them invisible without addressing the root cause of the problem. The root cause is poverty, which has many structural reasons: no access to education, social protection, discrimination based on caste and ethnicity, landlessness, physical and mental challenges, and isolation. 31. Criminalizing begging is a wrong approach to deal with the underlying causes of the problem. It ignores the reality that people who beg are the poorest of the poor and marginalized in society. Criminalizing begging violates the most fundamental rights of some of the most vulnerable people in our society. People in this stratum do W.P.(C)Nos.10498/2009 & 1630/2015 Page 16 of 23 not have access to basic necessities such as food, shelter and health, and in addition criminalizing them denies them the basic fundamental right to communicate and seek to deal with their plight. 32. Mr. Gautam Narayan, ld ASC, has placed before us the several schemes of the Government of India including the Antyodaya Anna Yojna, Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana, Swarna Jayanti Shahari Rozgar Yojna, National Family Benefit Scheme and other welfare Schemes of the Government which recognize the deprivations to which the people are being subjected. These schemes are intended to impact every possible need of the poor and manifest an admission on the part of the State to ensure the right to life of the citizens. 33. The State simply cannot fail to do its duty to provide a decent life to its citizens and add insult to injury by arresting, detaining and, if necessary, imprisoning such persons, who beg, in search for essentials of bare survival, which is even below sustenance. A person who is compelled to beg cannot be faulted for such actions in these circumstances. Any legislation, penalizing the people therefore, is in the teeth of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 34. We find that a ld. Single Judge of this court in the judgment rendered in (2007) 137 DLT 173 Ram Lakhan v. State has examined begging from a different perspective. We extract hereunder paras 13 to 16 of the judgment which shed light on the question under consideration: W.P.(C)Nos.10498/2009 & 1630/2015 Page 17 of 23 13. Before I specify those reasons, there is another interesting but, difficult aspect to the question of legitimacy of begging. What does the beggar do? He solicits alms by words spoken or actions expressed. And, it would be instructive to remember that Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India guarantees to all citizens the right to “freedom of speech and expression”. Would “begging”, therefore, not be covered by this guarantee? Just as an advertisement of a product would be within the perimeter of this valuable fundamental right, begging, too, could fall within it. After all, begging involves the beggar displaying his miserable plight by words or actions and requesting for alms by words (spoken or written) or actions. Does the starving man not have a fundamental right to inform a more fortunate soul that he is starving and request for food? And, if he were to do so, would he not be liable under the said Act for being declared as a ‘beggar’ and consequently being deprived of his liberty by being sent for detention at a certified institution? Does this not mean that the said Act leads to deprivation of liberty on the basis of a law which runs counter to the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression? Does this, therefore, not mean that even the fundamental right of protection of life and personal liberty, which is enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution, is also violated? 14. I am mindful of the fact that I am not deciding a writ petition where the validity of the said Act is in question. It is true that the case before me is only a revision petition challenging the judgment passed in an appeal under the said Act. But, an examination of these aspects touching upon the constitutional validity of the said Act is necessary because such a discussion would reveal the manner in which and the limits to which the provisions of the said Act can be taken. Although, on first impression, the idea of “begging” being protected by article 19(i)(a) of the Constitution may appear a little quaint, there are decisions of Courts in United States of America holding begging to W.P.(C)Nos.10498/2009 & 1630/2015 Page 18 of 23 be constitutionally protected speech. But, this does not mean that begging cannot be prohibited. The prohibition must, however, operate within limitation. In The People of the State of New York v. Eric Schroder, 617 N.Y.S. 2d 429 the validity of the ban on begging in the New York City Transit System came in question. Comparing the solicitation of funds by legitimate charities and begging by individuals in need, the Court observed: “Thus, it is uncontested that a charity has a First Amendment right to solicit funds to feed or clothe or otherwise aid those in need. It would be unreasonable to conclude that the Federal Constitution does not provide the same free speech protection to the individual in need as it does to the solicitor for a charity, to stand on the same public street corner and ask for money. No rational distinction can be made between the message involved, whether the person standing in the corner says ‘Help me, I'm homeless’ or ‘Help the Homeless’.” 15. Though begging was accepted as constitutionally protected speech, the law banning begging in the New York City transit system was upheld because it was found to be a reasonable safety precaution. 16. Viewed in this light, begging being part of the Constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech and expression, can only be subjected to reasonable restrictions by law in the interest of, inter alia, public order, decency or morality. Thus the said Act and, in particular, its provisions having penal consequences and effecting the liberty of individuals must be construed in a manner which results in their being interpreted as imposing reasonable restrictions. These considerations lead to the conclusion that even where the person is found begging, he need not necessarily be ordered to be detained in a Certified Institution. As discussed above, he ought not to be ordered to be detained if, in considering his W.P.(C)Nos.10498/2009 & 1630/2015 Page 19 of 23 condition and circumstances of living as required under Section 5(6) of the said Act, the Court discerns a defence of necessity; a situation where the person had no legitimate alternative to begging to feed and clothe himself or his family. Similarly, where it is apparent that the person was found begging under the exploitative command of others, he ought not to be deprived of his liberty by being sent to a Certified Institution for detention. In the light of the discussion above, the word “shall” appearing in Section 5(5) of the said Act would have to be tampered with the considerations specified in Section 5(6) of the said Act, which also contains the word “shall”. The effect would be that, since “interest of the beggar” is dominant, the word “shall” appearing in Section 5(5) would have to yield to the “shall” appearing in Section 5(6) and be read as “may”. Such a reading would not only serve the object of the Act better but would also bring in the restrictions to liberty within the Constitutional requirements of reasonableness. It is true that the proviso to Section 5(5), on a plain reading, does give the Court power to release a beggar after due admonition. But, that is pre-fixed by the condition that he is not likely to beg again and suffixed, if I may use the expression, with the requirement of furnishing a bond for abstaining from begging and good behaviour. That would be wholly inappropriate where a person begs out of sheer necessity or compulsion. 35. It is the least to ask that the state, mandated by the Preamble to the Constitution, ensures to all its citizens, Justice, Liberty, Equality and promotes Fraternity. 36. If the State wishes to criminalize specific types of forced beggary, it has to first think out a clear factual basis and impact thereof to pass a well thought legislation after due application of mind W.P.(C)Nos.10498/2009 & 1630/2015 Page 20 of 23 and being mindful of the constitutional rights provided under the Constitution of India. 37. The view we have taken is supported by the stand of the Government of NCT of Delhi before us. 38. In this regard, it is essential to note the written submission dated 15th September, 2009 filed under the signature of Ms. Debashree Mukherjee, Secretary, Department of Social Welfare of Government of NCT of Delhi wherein the NCT of Delhi has conceded thus :- “4. That it is submitted that the Answering Deponent fairly agrees that some provisions, in the Act are outdated, and need amendment in light of the present socio-economic conditions, namely Section 6, relating to the detention of a person, convicted for second or subsequent time, for a period of ten years in a certified institution; Section 8 – contribution of parents; Section 16 – payment of contribution by local authority and recovery thereof; Section 20 – disciplinary imprisonment; Section 26 – medical examination and detention of leprosy patients and lunatics. 5. xxx xxx xxx 6. That it is submitted that the issue of beggary may be seen in larger social context of destitution, homelessness and vagrancy, which need specific policy interventions. In this direction the State has taken initiative in formulating the “Samajik Suvidha Sangam”, which is carrying out a filed survey of urban slums, jhuggi – jhopri clusters, resettlement colonies etc. to identify the target population of the poor, destitute, homeless and vagrants which can be covered by the welfare schemes run by the Government.” (Emphasis by us) W.P.(C)Nos.10498/2009 & 1630/2015 Page 21 of 23 39. We have before us another reason supporting our decision which is the futility of lodging and detaining beggars in beggars homes and the resultant wastage of public funds. We find that in W.P.(Crl.) No1840/2006 Court on its own Motion v. Re Begging in Public by an order dated 8th February, 2007, Shri V.P. Chaudhary, Sr. Advocate was appointed as amicus curiae to visit beggars home and submit a report. Shri Chaudhary has submitted a status report dated 3rd December, 2007 after visiting and inspecting three beggars homes at Nirmal Chaya, and reported thus:- “I was informed that about 35 lakhs of rupees were being spent on these Homes every year. As compared to that investment, the benefit accruing from them to the society is rather negligible” Conclusions 40. When, in the backdrop of the above discussion, we examine, holistically, the provisions of the Act, we find that, while most of the provisions contained therein directly deal with begging, treating it as an offence, or other provisions ancillary thereto, there are certain provisions which do not treat beggary per se as an offence and which therefore, may not be hit by the vice of unconstitutionality. 41. We are, therefore, spared the necessity of striking down the entire Act, wholesale. The provisions which treat beggary/ begging, as an offence, committed by the beggar, or are ancillary thereto, would be Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29. W.P.(C)Nos.10498/2009 & 1630/2015 Page 22 of 23 42. These provisions either treat begging as an offence committed by the beggar, or deal with ancillary issues such as powers of officers to deal with the said offence, the nature of enquiry to be conducted therein, punishments and penalties to be awarded for the offence, the institutions to which such “offenders” could be committed and procedures following the awarding of sentence for committing the said offence. These provisions, in our view, cannot sustain constitutional scrutiny and deserve, therefore, to be struck down. 43. The remaining provisions of the Act, which do not directly or indirectly criminalize begging, or relate to the “offence” of begging, such as Section 11 (which deals with penalty for employing or causing persons to solicit or receive alms, causing persons or children to solicit or receive alms, or using such persons as exhibits), Section 30 (which deals with seizure and disposal of animals exposed or exhibited, for obtaining or extorting alms), and other provisions which deal with the nature of offences under the Act, appeals, the power to frame rules and removal of difficulties, would not be required to be struck down and are, therefore, maintained. Result 44. In the result, we declare Section Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29 of the Bombay Prevention of Begging Act, 1959, as extended to Delhi, as unconstitutional and strike down the said provisions. 45. The inevitable sequitur to our decision would be that all prosecutions, under the Act against persons alleged to have committed W.P.(C)Nos.10498/2009 & 1630/2015 Page 23 of 23 the offence of begging, would be liable to be struck down. The power to do so would, however, appropriately vest in the Courts seized of such prosecutions, and we, therefore, limit ourselves to observing that the fate of such prosecutions, if any, would have to abide by the present judgment, and our observations and findings contained herein. 46. The state is always at liberty to bring in alternative legislation to curb any racket of forced begging after undertaking an empirical examination on the sociological and economic aspects of the matter. 47. Before parting with the case, we are reminded of the words of Krishna Iyer, J in the pronouncement reported at AIR 1981 SC 674 Gopalanachari v. State of Kerala when he said that “...If men can be whisked away by the police and imprisoned for long months and the court can keep the cases pending without thought to the fact that an old man is lying in cellular confinement without hope of his case being disposed of, Article 21, read with Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution, remain symbolic and scriptural rather than a shield against unjust deprivation. Law is not a mascot but a defender of the faith. Surely, if law behaves lawlessly, social justice becomes a judicial hoax.” ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
http://lobis.nic.in/ddir/dhc/GMI/judgement/08-08-2018/GMI08082018CW104982009.pdf
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on : 7 th August, 2018
Date of decision : 8 th August, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 10498/2009 & CM APPL. 1837/2010
HARSH MANDER & ANR. ..... Petitioners Through : Mr. Colin Gonsalves, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Chaudhary Zia Ali Kabir, Ms. Pragya P Singh & Ms. Aditi Saxena, Advs. versus UOI & ORS. ..... Respondentss Through : Mr. Anil Soni, CGSC for UOI. Mr. Gautam Narayan, ASC, GNCTD with Ms. Mahamaya Chatterjee, Adv. + W.P.(C) 1630/2015 KARNIKA SAWHNEY ..... Petitioner Through : Mr BB Sawhney, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Indira Sawhney, Mr. Vaibhav Mishra, Yogendar Singh, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents Through : Ms. Monika Arora, Adv. with Mr. Harsh Ahuja, Adv. for UOI. Mr. Gautam Narayan, ASC, GNCTD with Ms. Mahamaya Chatterjee, Adv. W.P.(C)Nos.10498/2009 & 1630/2015 Page 2 of 23
CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR JUDGMENT GITA MITTAL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
“…A society that sees legislating inequality and homelessness into invisibility has unquestionably lost its way…” - An article in The Guardian
1. These writ petitions challenge the constitutionality and validity of all sections, except Section 11, of the Bombay Prevention of Begging Act, 1959 (hereafter referred to as the ‘Act’), as extended to the Union Territory of Delhi (now the NCT of Delhi) vide G.S.R. No. 638 dated 2nd June, 1960, published in the Gazette of India, pt. II, Section 3(i), dated 11th June, 1960 on the ground that it violates the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India.
2. For the purposes of effective adjudication of the issue, we may advert to the scheme of the enactment.
3. Section 2(1) (i) thereof defines “Begging”.
Section 4(1) allows the police to arrest the beggar without a warrant.
Section 5 of the Act enables a summary enquiry by the court following which the person may be detained in a certified institution. Section 6 contemplates punishment for a person who had been previously detained in a W.P.(C)Nos.10498/2009 & 1630/2015 Page 3 of 23 Certified Institution under the act, upon his being found begging. The remaining provisions of Section 6 provide the quantum of detention or imprisonment, based on the repetition of convictions. 4. Significantly, Section 11 of the act provides a penalty for employing or causing persons to beg or using them for the purpose of begging. 5. The relevant statutory provisions deserve to be extracted W.P.(C)Nos.10498/2009 & 1630/2015 Page 4 of 23 xxx xxx xxx 4. Power to require person found begging to appear before Court.— (1) Any police officer, or other person authorised in this behalf in accordance with rules made by the State Government, may arrest without a warrant any person who is found begging: Provided that, no person entering on any private premises for the purpose of soliciting or receiving alms shall be so arrested or shall be liable to any proceedings under this Act, except upon a complaint by the occupier of the premises. (2) Such police officer or other person shall take or send the person so arrested to a Court. (3) The provisions of Section 61 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (V of 1898), shall apply to every arrest under this section, and the officer in charge of the police station or section shall cause the arrested person to be kept in the prescribed manner until he can be brought before a Court. xxx xxx xxx 5. Summary inquiry in respect of persons found begging and their detention.— (1) Where a person who is brought before the court under the last preceding section is not proved to have previously been detained in a Certified Institution under the provisions of this Act, the Court shall make a summary inquiry, in the prescribed manner, as regards the allegation that he was found begging. (2) If the inquiry referred to in sub-section (1) cannot be completed forthwith, the court may adjourn it from time to time and order the person to be remanded to such place and custody as may be convenient. (3) If on making the inquiry referred to in sub-section (1), the court is not satisfied that the person was found begging, it shall order; that such person be released forthwith. W.P.(C)Nos.10498/2009 & 1630/2015 Page 5 of 23 (4) If on making the inquiry referred to in sub-section (1), the court is satisfied that such person was found begging, it shall record a finding that the person is a beggar. (5) If a person is found to be a beggar under the last preceding sub-section, the Court shall declare him to be a beggar and may— (a) if the Court is satisfied from the circumstances of the case that the person is not likely to beg again, admonish and release the beggar on his or any other person whom Court considers suitable, executing a bond, with or without surety as the Court may require, requiring the beggar to abstain from begging and to be of good behaviour; or (b) if the Court is of opinion that the person is not likely to give up begging, by order direct such person to report himself forthwith to the Commissioner of Police or the District Magistrate having jurisdiction in the area and shall forward a copy of such order to the Commissioner of Police or, as the case may be, the District Magistrate; or (c) order the beggar to be detained in a Certified Institution for a period of not less than one year, but not more than three years.] (6) In passing any order under the provisions of this Act, 2 [the court may] have regard to the following considerations, that is to say— (a) the age and character of the beggar, (b) the circumstances and conditions in which the beggar was living, (c) reports made by the Probation Officer, and (d) such other matters as may, in the opinion of the court, require to be taken into consideration in the interest of the beggar. (7) The report of the Probation Officer or any other report considered by the court under the sub-section immediately preceding, shall be treated as confidential: W.P.(C)Nos.10498/2009 & 1630/2015 Page 6 of 23 Provided that if such report relates to the character, health or conduct of, or the circumstances and conditions in which, the beggar is living, the court may, if it thinks expedient, communicate the substance thereof to the beggar or (in case of dependants) to the guardian concerned, and may give the beggar or the guardian, as the case may be, an opportunity of producing evidence which may be relevant to the matters stated in the report. (8) A copy of the order made under sub-section (5) shall be sent forthwith to the Chief Inspector. (9) Notwithstanding anything in this section, when the person found to be a beggar as aforesaid is a child, being a child who is not under the age of five years, the court shall forward him to a Juvenile Court, and shall not make any order under subsection (5). The Juvenile Court shall deal with the child under Section 40 of the Bombay Children Act, 1948 (Bom. LXXI of 1948), as if the child were a person described in clause (a) of that section. For the purpose of ascertaining the age of the person, the court may, if necessary, cause the beggar to be examined by a medical officer. xxx xxx xxx 6. Penalty for begging after detention as beggar.— (1) Whoever, having been previously detained in a Certified Institution under this Act is found begging, shall on conviction be punished as hereinafter in this section provided. (2) When a person is convicted for the first time under subsection (1) the Court shall order him to be detained in a Certified Institution for a period of not less than two years and not more than three years. (3) When a person is convicted for the second or subsequent time under sub-section (1), the court shall order him to be detained for a period of ten years in a Certified Institution, and may convert any period of such detention (not exceeding two years) into a sentence of imprisonment extending to a like period. W.P.(C)Nos.10498/2009 & 1630/2015 Page 7 of 23 xxx xxx xxx 11. Penalty for employing or causing persons to beg or using them for purposes of begging.— Whoever employs or causes, any person to solicit or receive alms, or whoever having the custody, charge or care of a child, connives at or encourages the employment or the causing of a child to solicit, or receive alms or whoever uses another person as an exhibit for the purpose of begging, shall on conviction be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years but which shall not be less than one year.” 6. So far as the opposition of the respondents is concerned, Mr. Anil Soni, ld. Standing Counsel, Govt. of India, has placed a counter affidavit before us dated 28th November, 2017 stating as follows:- “8. ...Begging should not be a crime if it is done because of poverty. However, in order to ascertain whether it is being done out of poverty or willingly by a person even if he’/she is well off or has been forced into begging, it is necessary to detain him/her. Only after detention of such person and subsequent investigation, the cause of begging by an individual can be ascertained. Hence, the provision of detention as mentioned the Section in the Act is warranted.” (Emphasis by us) 7. Interestingly in para 9 of the counter affidavit, the respondents have further stated as follows: “9. ... as per the Seventh schedule of the Constitution of India and under Entry 9 of State List the subject matter of Relief of disabled and employable come under the purview of State List. As per Entry 6 of State List, issue related to Public Health and sanitation, hospital and dispensaries is a State subject.” W.P.(C)Nos.10498/2009 & 1630/2015 Page 8 of 23 8. So far as expanse of anti-beggary legislations is concerned, in para 10 of the counter affidavit, it is submitted that 20 States and 2 Union Territories have either enacted their own legislations or adopted the legislations adopted by other states. 9. Before considering the statutory provisions, we may extract the Preamble of the Act, which gives the object and purpose of the enactment in the following terms: “An Act to consolidate and amend the law relating to beggars for the purpose of making uniform and better provision for the prevention of begging in the State of Bombay and for matters connected therewith. Where it is expedient to make uniform and better provision for the prevention of begging in the State of Bombay; for the detention, training and employment of beggars and their dependents in certain institutions; for the custody, trial and punishment of beggar offenders; and for these and other purposes to consolidate and amend the law relating to beggars” 10. The petitioner has urged several grounds relating to Articles 14, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India on the basis of which the law ought to be struck down as being ultra vires thereof. 11. The petitioners have filed their submissions. Mr. Gautam Narayan. ld ASC has undertaken the exercise of summarizing the submissions into a brief note. We may extract the necessary limbs of the submissions filed by the petitioners, on which the constitutional challenge stands:- “2. Violates Article 14 – Right to equality 2.1 Section 2(1)(i)(a) violates Article 14 in as much as it does not make any distinction between persons who solicit W.P.(C)Nos.10498/2009 & 1630/2015 Page 9 of 23 or receive money for authorized purposes and those who are singing, dancing, or engaged in similar activities. further, pretence is a very vague terms for the police to take action on beggary. xxx xxx xxx 3. Article 19(1)(a) – Freedom of speech and expression 3.1 Petitioner submits that (a) soliciting is a verbal request and is covered under the right to free speech and expression (Jolly Jose Varghese v. Bank of Cochin AIR 1980 Sc 470) and (b) the Act imposes unreasonable restrictions on the right in the interests of public order, decency and morality. The Act imposes unreasonable restrictions on (i) soliciting and (ii) expressing poverty and vulnerability. xxx xxx xxx 5. Arbitrary application of law 5.1 While the Act unjustly restricts the movement of beggars, the application of the Act also limits the movement of a large number of no-beggars. Interviews with lawyers providing legal aid have revealed that 74% of persons arrested were from the informal labour sector such as those employed in small hotels, markets and construction, and 45% were homeless. It was observed that beggars were unaware of the reasons of arrest and were taken to the Beggars Court at the pretext of doing some work like cleaning. xxx xxx xxx 8. Article 21 – Right to life 8.1 It is well settled that the right to life is the right to live with dignity and with necessities of life required for it. The petitioner submits that this right includes the right to take steps including begging to survive and keep body and W.P.(C)Nos.10498/2009 & 1630/2015 Page 10 of 23 mind together (Gopalanachari v. State of Kerala AIR 1981 SC 674), Criminalisation of begging by the Act deprives a parson of the right to obtain basic necessities of life. The Act further requires people to make an unreasonable choice between committing a crime to be rehabilitated or not commit the crime and starve which goes against the spirit of the Constitution and violates Article 21.” 12. The question, placed before is simple. In our constitutional framework that promises every person the right to live with dignity, can the State criminalize begging? The social contract between the citizen and the State is a contract by which in exchange for the citizen ceding her autonomy partially, the State promises her security over her person and a life with dignity. 13. In our constitutional framework, this is guaranteed by Part III which enjoins the State not only to protect life but also to advance it, and Part IV which mandates that the State shall allocate resources so as to further the common good. In short the constitution envisages the vision of a society that is humane, just and fair. 14. So far as the threshold of a constitutional challenge i W.P.(C)Nos.10498/2009 & 1630/2015 Page 11 of 23 legislation. This being the case, there is no rational distinction between the two types of legislation when it comes to this ground of challenge under Article 14. The test of manifest arbitrariness, therefore, as laid down in the aforesaid judgments would apply to invalidate legislation as well as subordinate legislation under Article 14. Manifest arbitrariness, therefore, must be something done by the legislature capriciously, irrationally and/or without adequate determining principle. Also, when something is done which is excessive and disproportionate, such legislation would be manifestly arbitrary. We are, therefore, of the view that arbitrariness in the sense of manifest arbitrariness as pointed out by us above would apply to negate legislation as well under Article 14.” (Emphasis by us) 15. It is our view that law does not make any distinction between types of begging i.e. voluntary or involuntary as has been urged by the petitioners. The absence of any such distinction exposes the statute to a judicial evaluation on the ground of being arbitrary. 16. On the contrary, the comprehensiveness of the definition of begging in Section 2(1) (i), appears to indicate a legislative intent to cover a broad area, including in its sweep, all types of begging. It has also been pointed out that the respondents are using homelessness and begging synonymously and are in fact detaining the homeless as if they were begging and implementing the penal provision of the act qua them. 17. This in our view is manifestly arbitrary. 18. In this process, the State would be detaining persons who are not engaged in begging, such persons may be daily wagers and/or W.P.(C)Nos.10498/2009 & 1630/2015 Page 12 of 23 having family members to support. As a result of the detention of the bread earner of the family, the entire family may be reduced to financial deprivation and penury. Such can never be the object, spirit and intendment of a welfare state by way of what is touted as a social benefit legislation. 19. For these reasons, we find Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the statute to be unconstitutional for being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 20. We also find that the explanation of the respondents that a persons has to be detained to ascertain the cause of poverty is in the teeth of the rights of such persons accorded under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The explanation given by the respondent is that as a result, the respondents would be arresting persons who may be subsequently found to have not been begging, thereby, depriving such persons of their liberty without following any process of law. This is also completely impermissible. 21. Some essential concomitants and contours of Article 21 of the Constitution of India guaranteeing Right to Life have been elucidated and expounded upon by the Supreme Court of India. This includes inter alia the right to shelter, education, healthcare and clean environment. We consider these judicial pronouncements hereafter. 22. The Supreme Court has emphasised that food, clothing and shelter constitute the essential needs of every human being in (1990) 1 SCC 520 Shantistar Builders v. Narayan Khimalal Totame the Supreme Court held thus: W.P.(C)Nos.10498/2009 & 1630/2015 Page 13 of 23 “9. Basic needs of man have traditionally been accepted to be three — food, clothing and shelter. The right to life is guaranteed in any civilized society. That would take within its sweep the right to food, the right to clothing, the right to decent environment and a reasonable accommodation to live in. The difference between the need of an animal and a human being for shelter has to be kept in view. For the animal it is the bare protection of the body; for a human being it has to be a suitable accommodation which would allow him to grow in every aspect — physical, mental and intellectual. The Constitution aims at ensuring fuller development of every child. That would be possible only if the child is in a proper home. It is not necessary that every citizen must be ensured of living in a well-built comfortable house but a reasonable home particularly for people in India can even be mud-built thatched house or a mud-built fire-proof accommodation.” (Emphasis by us) 23. The right of education as flowing from Article 21 was recognised in a judgment report at (1993) 1 SCC 645 Unni Krishnan J.P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, the Supreme Court held as follows: “226. xxx 1. The citizens of this country have a fundamental right to education. The said right flows from Article 21. This right is, however, not an absolute right. Its content and parameters have to be determined in the light of Articles 45 and 41. In other words every child/citizen of this country has a right to free education until he completes the age of fourteen years. Thereafter his right to education is subject to the limits of economic capacity and development of the State. (Emphasis by us) W.P.(C)Nos.10498/2009 & 1630/2015 Page 14 of 23 24. This led to a Constitutional amendment and incorporation of Article 21A which provides the right to free and compulsory education for all children between the ages of 6 to 14, as a fundamental right. In pursuance to this, the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009 was enacted to implement the constitutional mandate. 25. In a case reported at (1997) 2 SCC 83 State of Punjab & Ors. v. Mohinder Singh Chawla & Ors., it was held that “[i]t is now settled law that right to health is integral to the right to life. Government has a constitutional obligation to provide health facilities”. 26. Protection of health of citizens, freedom and entitlement to live with human dignity with certain facilities was recognized in the judgment reported at AIR 1984 SC 802 Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs. Union of India & Ors. it was held as follows: “10. ... This right to live with human dignity enshrined in Article 21 derives its life breath from the Directive Principles of State Policy and particularly clauses (e) and (f) of Article 39 and Articles 41 and 42 and at the least, therefore, it must include protection of the health and strength of workers, men and women, and of the tender age of children against abuse, opportunities and facilities for children to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity, educational facilities, just and humane conditions of work and maternity relief. These are the minimum requirements which must exist in order to enable a person to live with human dignity and no State — neither the Central Government nor any State Government — has the right to take any action which will deprive a person of the enjoyment of these basic essentials.” (Emphasis by us) W.P.(C)Nos.10498/2009 & 1630/2015 Page 15 of 23 27. There can be no cavil that the above are the basic and primary needs of every human being. 28. It remains a hard reality that the State has not been able to ensure even the bare essentials of the right to life to all its citizens, even in Delhi. We find reports of starvation deaths in the newspapers and ensuring education to the 6 to 14 year old remains a challenge. 29. People beg on the streets not because they wish to, but because they need to. Begging is their last resort to subsistence, they have no other means to survive. Begging is a symptom of a disease, of the fact that the person has fallen through the socially created net. The government has the mandate to provide social security for everyone, to ensure that all citizens have basic facilities, and the presence of beggars is evidence that the state has not managed to provide these to all its citizens. 30. If we want to eradicate begging, artificial means to make beggars invisible will not suffice. A move to criminalize them will make them invisible without addressing the root cause of the problem. The root cause is poverty, which has many structural reasons: no access to education, social protection, discrimination based on caste and ethnicity, landlessness, physical and mental challenges, and isolation. 31. Criminalizing begging is a wrong approach to deal with the underlying causes of the problem. It ignores the reality that people who beg are the poorest of the poor and marginalized in society. Criminalizing begging violates the most fundamental rights of some of the most vulnerable people in our society. People in this stratum do W.P.(C)Nos.10498/2009 & 1630/2015 Page 16 of 23 not have access to basic necessities such as food, shelter and health, and in addition criminalizing them denies them the basic fundamental right to communicate and seek to deal with their plight. 32. Mr. Gautam Narayan, ld ASC, has placed before us the several schemes of the Government of India including the Antyodaya Anna Yojna, Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana, Swarna Jayanti Shahari Rozgar Yojna, National Family Benefit Scheme and other welfare Schemes of the Government which recognize the deprivations to which the people are being subjected. These schemes are intended to impact every possible need of the poor and manifest an admission on the part of the State to ensure the right to life of the citizens. 33. The State simply cannot fail to do its duty to provide a decent life to its citizens and add insult to injury by arresting, detaining and, if necessary, imprisoning such persons, who beg, in search for essentials of bare survival, which is even below sustenance. A person who is compelled to beg cannot be faulted for such actions in these circumstances. Any legislation, penalizing the people therefore, is in the teeth of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 34. We find that a ld. Single Judge of this court in the judgment rendered in (2007) 137 DLT 173 Ram Lakhan v. State has examined begging from a different perspective. We extract hereunder paras 13 to 16 of the judgment which shed light on the question under consideration: W.P.(C)Nos.10498/2009 & 1630/2015 Page 17 of 23 13. Before I specify those reasons, there is another interesting but, difficult aspect to the question of legitimacy of begging. What does the beggar do? He solicits alms by words spoken or actions expressed. And, it would be instructive to remember that Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India guarantees to all citizens the right to “freedom of speech and expression”. Would “begging”, therefore, not be covered by this guarantee? Just as an advertisement of a product would be within the perimeter of this valuable fundamental right, begging, too, could fall within it. After all, begging involves the beggar displaying his miserable plight by words or actions and requesting for alms by words (spoken or written) or actions. Does the starving man not have a fundamental right to inform a more fortunate soul that he is starving and request for food? And, if he were to do so, would he not be liable under the said Act for being declared as a ‘beggar’ and consequently being deprived of his liberty by being sent for detention at a certified institution? Does this not mean that the said Act leads to deprivation of liberty on the basis of a law which runs counter to the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression? Does this, therefore, not mean that even the fundamental right of protection of life and personal liberty, which is enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution, is also violated? 14. I am mindful of the fact that I am not deciding a writ petition where the validity of the said Act is in question. It is true that the case before me is only a revision petition challenging the judgment passed in an appeal under the said Act. But, an examination of these aspects touching upon the constitutional validity of the said Act is necessary because such a discussion would reveal the manner in which and the limits to which the provisions of the said Act can be taken. Although, on first impression, the idea of “begging” being protected by article 19(i)(a) of the Constitution may appear a little quaint, there are decisions of Courts in United States of America holding begging to W.P.(C)Nos.10498/2009 & 1630/2015 Page 18 of 23 be constitutionally protected speech. But, this does not mean that begging cannot be prohibited. The prohibition must, however, operate within limitation. In The People of the State of New York v. Eric Schroder, 617 N.Y.S. 2d 429 the validity of the ban on begging in the New York City Transit System came in question. Comparing the solicitation of funds by legitimate charities and begging by individuals in need, the Court observed: “Thus, it is uncontested that a charity has a First Amendment right to solicit funds to feed or clothe or otherwise aid those in need. It would be unreasonable to conclude that the Federal Constitution does not provide the same free speech protection to the individual in need as it does to the solicitor for a charity, to stand on the same public street corner and ask for money. No rational distinction can be made between the message involved, whether the person standing in the corner says ‘Help me, I'm homeless’ or ‘Help the Homeless’.” 15. Though begging was accepted as constitutionally protected speech, the law banning begging in the New York City transit system was upheld because it was found to be a reasonable safety precaution. 16. Viewed in this light, begging being part of the Constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech and expression, can only be subjected to reasonable restrictions by law in the interest of, inter alia, public order, decency or morality. Thus the said Act and, in particular, its provisions having penal consequences and effecting the liberty of individuals must be construed in a manner which results in their being interpreted as imposing reasonable restrictions. These considerations lead to the conclusion that even where the person is found begging, he need not necessarily be ordered to be detained in a Certified Institution. As discussed above, he ought not to be ordered to be detained if, in considering his W.P.(C)Nos.10498/2009 & 1630/2015 Page 19 of 23 condition and circumstances of living as required under Section 5(6) of the said Act, the Court discerns a defence of necessity; a situation where the person had no legitimate alternative to begging to feed and clothe himself or his family. Similarly, where it is apparent that the person was found begging under the exploitative command of others, he ought not to be deprived of his liberty by being sent to a Certified Institution for detention. In the light of the discussion above, the word “shall” appearing in Section 5(5) of the said Act would have to be tampered with the considerations specified in Section 5(6) of the said Act, which also contains the word “shall”. The effect would be that, since “interest of the beggar” is dominant, the word “shall” appearing in Section 5(5) would have to yield to the “shall” appearing in Section 5(6) and be read as “may”. Such a reading would not only serve the object of the Act better but would also bring in the restrictions to liberty within the Constitutional requirements of reasonableness. It is true that the proviso to Section 5(5), on a plain reading, does give the Court power to release a beggar after due admonition. But, that is pre-fixed by the condition that he is not likely to beg again and suffixed, if I may use the expression, with the requirement of furnishing a bond for abstaining from begging and good behaviour. That would be wholly inappropriate where a person begs out of sheer necessity or compulsion. 35. It is the least to ask that the state, mandated by the Preamble to the Constitution, ensures to all its citizens, Justice, Liberty, Equality and promotes Fraternity. 36. If the State wishes to criminalize specific types of forced beggary, it has to first think out a clear factual basis and impact thereof to pass a well thought legislation after due application of mind W.P.(C)Nos.10498/2009 & 1630/2015 Page 20 of 23 and being mindful of the constitutional rights provided under the Constitution of India. 37. The view we have taken is supported by the stand of the Government of NCT of Delhi before us. 38. In this regard, it is essential to note the written submission dated 15th September, 2009 filed under the signature of Ms. Debashree Mukherjee, Secretary, Department of Social Welfare of Government of NCT of Delhi wherein the NCT of Delhi has conceded thus :- “4. That it is submitted that the Answering Deponent fairly agrees that some provisions, in the Act are outdated, and need amendment in light of the present socio-economic conditions, namely Section 6, relating to the detention of a person, convicted for second or subsequent time, for a period of ten years in a certified institution; Section 8 – contribution of parents; Section 16 – payment of contribution by local authority and recovery thereof; Section 20 – disciplinary imprisonment; Section 26 – medical examination and detention of leprosy patients and lunatics. 5. xxx xxx xxx 6. That it is submitted that the issue of beggary may be seen in larger social context of destitution, homelessness and vagrancy, which need specific policy interventions. In this direction the State has taken initiative in formulating the “Samajik Suvidha Sangam”, which is carrying out a filed survey of urban slums, jhuggi – jhopri clusters, resettlement colonies etc. to identify the target population of the poor, destitute, homeless and vagrants which can be covered by the welfare schemes run by the Government.” (Emphasis by us) W.P.(C)Nos.10498/2009 & 1630/2015 Page 21 of 23 39. We have before us another reason supporting our decision which is the futility of lodging and detaining beggars in beggars homes and the resultant wastage of public funds. We find that in W.P.(Crl.) No1840/2006 Court on its own Motion v. Re Begging in Public by an order dated 8th February, 2007, Shri V.P. Chaudhary, Sr. Advocate was appointed as amicus curiae to visit beggars home and submit a report. Shri Chaudhary has submitted a status report dated 3rd December, 2007 after visiting and inspecting three beggars homes at Nirmal Chaya, and reported thus:- “I was informed that about 35 lakhs of rupees were being spent on these Homes every year. As compared to that investment, the benefit accruing from them to the society is rather negligible” Conclusions 40. When, in the backdrop of the above discussion, we examine, holistically, the provisions of the Act, we find that, while most of the provisions contained therein directly deal with begging, treating it as an offence, or other provisions ancillary thereto, there are certain provisions which do not treat beggary per se as an offence and which therefore, may not be hit by the vice of unconstitutionality. 41. We are, therefore, spared the necessity of striking down the entire Act, wholesale. The provisions which treat beggary/ begging, as an offence, committed by the beggar, or are ancillary thereto, would be Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29. W.P.(C)Nos.10498/2009 & 1630/2015 Page 22 of 23 42. These provisions either treat begging as an offence committed by the beggar, or deal with ancillary issues such as powers of officers to deal with the said offence, the nature of enquiry to be conducted therein, punishments and penalties to be awarded for the offence, the institutions to which such “offenders” could be committed and procedures following the awarding of sentence for committing the said offence. These provisions, in our view, cannot sustain constitutional scrutiny and deserve, therefore, to be struck down. 43. The remaining provisions of the Act, which do not directly or indirectly criminalize begging, or relate to the “offence” of begging, such as Section 11 (which deals with penalty for employing or causing persons to solicit or receive alms, causing persons or children to solicit or receive alms, or using such persons as exhibits), Section 30 (which deals with seizure and disposal of animals exposed or exhibited, for obtaining or extorting alms), and other provisions which deal with the nature of offences under the Act, appeals, the power to frame rules and removal of difficulties, would not be required to be struck down and are, therefore, maintained. Result 44. In the result, we declare Section Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29 of the Bombay Prevention of Begging Act, 1959, as extended to Delhi, as unconstitutional and strike down the said provisions. 45. The inevitable sequitur to our decision would be that all prosecutions, under the Act against persons alleged to have committed W.P.(C)Nos.10498/2009 & 1630/2015 Page 23 of 23 the offence of begging, would be liable to be struck down. The power to do so would, however, appropriately vest in the Courts seized of such prosecutions, and we, therefore, limit ourselves to observing that the fate of such prosecutions, if any, would have to abide by the present judgment, and our observations and findings contained herein. 46. The state is always at liberty to bring in alternative legislation to curb any racket of forced begging after undertaking an empirical examination on the sociological and economic aspects of the matter. 47. Before parting with the case, we are reminded of the words of Krishna Iyer, J in the pronouncement reported at AIR 1981 SC 674 Gopalanachari v. State of Kerala when he said that “...If men can be whisked away by the police and imprisoned for long months and the court can keep the cases pending without thought to the fact that an old man is lying in cellular confinement without hope of his case being disposed of, Article 21, read with Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution, remain symbolic and scriptural rather than a shield against unjust deprivation. Law is not a mascot but a defender of the faith. Surely, if law behaves lawlessly, social justice becomes a judicial hoax.” ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
Saturday, August 4, 2018
Challenges to Traditional Livelihood of Denotified-Nomadic Tribes
विमुक्त-भटक्या जमातींचा उपजीविकेचा प्रश्न गंभीर?
जोशी या भटक्या जमातीमधील तीन इसम पोपट घेऊन भविष्य सागणेकरिता टिटवाळा येथे बाजारात बसले होते. हि जमात आपली उपजीविका पोपट दाखवून भविष्य सांगणे यावर आपले कुटंबाचे पालनपोषण करतात.या लोकांना टिटवाळा येथील भर बाजारातून अटक करण्यात आली. सदरची बातमी झी २४ तास मध्ये काल संध्याकाळी दाखवण्यात आली होती. हि बातमी मी पाहिली आणि यानंतर विविध प्रसारमाध्यमांना, टीव्ही चॅनलशी संपर्क साधून या विषयी न्याय मागण्यात यावा व याची दाखल घेणेत यावी अशी विंनंती केली पण या घटनेविषयी काहीच प्रतिसाद मिळाला नाही. हे पोपटवाले कुठले असतील, यांना संपर्क करणेकरीता माझ्याकडे त्यांचा नंबरही नव्हता , बरीच चौकशी केली असता काहीही माहिती मिळाली नाही. यामुळे मी आज टिटवाळा पोलीस स्टेटशनला गेलो आणि या घटनेविषयी विचारपूस केली तर पोलीस विभागातील गोपनीय विभागातून सदरची कार्यवाही आमचे कार्यालयातून झाली नाही तर वन अधिकारी, कल्याण येथून झाली आहे असे सांगण्यात आले. यामुळे तेथून मंगेश साळुंके व मी कल्याण येथील वन विभागाच्या कार्यालयात गेलो, तेथील वन अधिकारी यांना भेटलो या प्रकाराविषयी विचारपूस केली तसेच विंनती केली कि या भटक्या जमातींना पारंपरिक व्यवसायाशिवाय कोणतेच उपजीविकेचे , पॉट भरणेच साधन नाही, परंपरेने पोपट दाखवून भविष्य सांगून पिढ्यान पिढ्या हा समाज जगत आला आहे. भारतातील बऱ्याच ग्रंथामध्ये यांच्या पोपट घेऊन भविष्य सांगण्याचे कलेविषयी लिहिले आहे. शासनाने यांना पर्यायी उपजीविकेची साधन निर्माण करून देणे गरजेचे आहे, ह्या भटक्या जमाती आज २१ व्या शतकातही पारंपरिक केलेवरच भिक्षा मागून उदर निर्वाह करत आहेत, याला कारणीभूत आहे ती शासनाची अकार्यक्षम उपाय योजना, यांचे प्रश्नाकडे होणारे दुर्लक्ष्य. वन विभागाने या भटक्या जमातीमध्ये वन संरक्षण कायदे यांचे बद्दल जाणीव जागृती करणे गरजेचे आहे. अशाप्रकारे तेथील अधिकारी यांना सांगण्याचा प्रयत्न केला पण त्यांचे हातात काही नाही असे सांगितले, कायद्यानुसारच कारवाही केली आहे असे सांगण्यात आले. या भटक्या जमातीच्या उपजीविक्या संपुष्टात आणणारे कायदे या देशात ब्रिटिश काळा पासून झाले आहेत पण आज पर्यंत यांचे विकासाकरिता एकही कायदा देशात झाला नाही. पुढे आम्ही ठाणे येथील जिल्ला मुख्य कार्यालयात गेलो तिथे असणारे वरिष्ठ अधिकारी यांचेबरोबर सखोल चर्चा झाली त्यानी आम्ही केलेल्या मागण्या विमुक्त व भटक्या जमातीच्या वन्य हक्काचे संरक्षण झाले पाहिजे, या जमातींना अन्न, वन औषधे इ. करिता परवानगी द्यावी, मदारी, पोपटवाले व भटक्या विमुक्त जमातींना वन मित्र म्हणून निवड करणेत यावी. मदारी समाजाला सर्प मित्र म्हणून मान्यता देऊन ओळखपत्रे देणेत यावी. वन संरक्षण कायदा व वन विभागातील विमुक्त भटक्या जमातींना असलेले अधिकार हक्क व अधिकार या बाबत प्रबोधन करणेत यावे इ. मागण्या त्यांनी मान्य केल्या याकरिता भटक्या जमातींनी पुढाकार घ्यावा अशी सूचना केली. यामुळे प्रत्येक जिल्यातील अधिकारी यांनी या प्रकारे कार्यक्षम कार्य केले तर वनावर उपजीविका असणाऱ्या विमुक्त भटक्या जमातीचा प्रश्न सुटेल. या साठी शासन पातळीवर उपाय योजना करणेची गरज आहे.
Sunday, December 10, 2017
DENOTIFIED AND NOMADIC TRIBES VIDEOS AND DOCUMENTARY
http://www.mashpedia.com/Denotified_tribes_of_India
Tuesday, December 15, 2015
KALIDAS SHINDE: Demand for Denotified and Nomadic Tribes Socio-Ec...
KALIDAS SHINDE: Demand for Denotified and Nomadic Tribes Socio-Ec...: At least Include rest of the Denotified and Nomadic Tribes in Maharashtra for Socio-economic Survey, till date marginalised voices DNT/NT p...
Demand for Denotified and Nomadic Tribes Socio-Economic Survey
At least Include rest of the Denotified and Nomadic Tribes in Maharashtra for Socio-economic Survey, till date marginalised voices DNT/NT people unable to put pressure for the reservation
Wednesday, November 25, 2015
Monday, September 28, 2015
panel to collect info on conditions of denotified and Nomadic Tribes
panel to collect info on conditions of denotified
Wednesday, 22 July 2015 | PNS | Chandigarh | in Chandigarh
Idate while addressing a Press conference after meeting representatives of denotified and nomadic tribes at Kurukshetra in Haryana on Tuesday said that Prime Minister Narendra Modi was of the view that the benefit of development should reach up to the last person. Therefore, efforts were being made to conduct survey of such families in the country, who are actually needy.
He said that the Commission was constituted on January 1, 2015 and it started working from January 10. The Commission has so far interacted with people in Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Rajasthan, Maharashtra and Haryana.
After interacting with these people, it was learned that their condition is very miserable. There are such families which do not even have roof over their head and nor do they have any employment, he added.
The Commission is of the view that people belonging to denotified and nomandic tribes also join the mainstream. The Government would take steps so that children of such families also get higher education and their financial condition gets better, said he.
He added that report of every state would be submitted to the Central Government and action would be taken on the report.
source
http://www.dailypioneer.com/STATE-EDITIONS/chandigarh/panel-to-collect-info-on-conditions-of-denotified.html
National Commission for Denotified Tribes to Give Its Report Is Three Years
Press Information Bureau
Government of India
Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment
17-March-2015 16:14 IST
Government of India
Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment
17-March-2015 16:14 IST
National Commission for Denotified Tribes to Give Its Report Is Three Years
The
Government has constituted a National Commission for Denotified,
Nomadic and Semi-Nomadic Tribes(NCDNT) in January, 2015. The terms of
reference of the Commission are as under: i) To prepare a State-wise list of castes belonging https://mail.google.com/mail/mu/?login=1&pli=1#passwordto Denotified and Nomadic Tribes.
ii) To identify the castes belonging to Denotified and Nomadic Tribes in the Lists of Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes and Central List/State List of Other Backward Classes.
iii) To identify the castes belonging to Denotified and Nomadic Tribes which have not been included in the Lists of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Central List of Other Backward Classes and to pursue their case for inclusion in these lists depending on the modalities laid down for the purpose.
iv) To identify the places where DNTs are densely populated.
v) To evaluate the progress of the development of Denotified and Nomadic Tribes under the Union and the States.
vi) To suggest appropriate measures in respect of Denotified and Nomadic Tribes to be undertaken by the Central Government or the State Government.
vii) Any other related work as may be assigned by the Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment.
The Commission will submit its report in a period of three years.
The Government of India has been seized of the educational and economic needs of the Denotified Nomadic and Semi-nomadic Tribes (DNTs) who are spread amongst Scheduled Castes, Scheduled-Tribes, Other Backward Classes and others. One of the basic principles of the Government is to provide for full equality of opportunity, particularly in education and employment of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes and marginalized sections. Those, who are covered under the lists of SC/ST&OBCs are getting the benefits provided to these groups. There are certain groups of DNTs who are not covered under the lists of SC/ST & OBCs and for them the Government has launched two schemes namely (i) Dr. Ambedkar Centrally Sponsored Scheme of Pre-Matric and Post-Matric Scholarship Scheme for Denotifed, Nomadic and Semi-Nomadic Tribes (DNTs) and (ii) Nanaji Deshmukh Centrally Sponsored Scheme of Construction of Hostels for Denotified, Nomadic and Semi-Nomadic Tribes in the current financial year. Funds have been released to the States of Maharashtra & Karnataka under these Schemes.
This information was given by the Minister of State for Social Justice and Empowerment, Shri Krishan Pal Gurjar in a written reply in the Lok Sabha today.
Thursday, September 3, 2015
Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment -In-principle approval of the Cabinet on the Recommendations of (i) the National Commission for Denotified, Nomadic and Semi-nomadic Tribes (NCDNT) and (ii) the National Advisory Council (NAC).
source
Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment
http://socialjustice.nic.in/pdf/pressbrief-NCDNT.pdf
Ministry Name – Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment
Date of decision: 30.1.2014.
Subject: In-principle approval of the Cabinet on the Recommendations of (i) the National Commission for Denotified, Nomadic and Semi-nomadic Tribes (NCDNT) and (ii) the National Advisory Council (NAC).
Background – The British Government had from time to time declared some of the tribes which, according to them, were involved in criminal activities as Criminal Tribes. The Criminal Tribes Act (CTA), 1871 provided that if a Local Government had reason to believe that any tribe, gang or class of people is addicted to the systematic commission of non-bailable offences, it may, with the authorization of the Governor General, declare such tribe etc. as a "Criminal Tribe". The CTA was revised in 1911 and in 1924. The CTA, 1924, was repealed by the Criminal Tribes Laws (Repeal) Act, 1952 on the recommendations of the Shri Ananthasayanam Ayyangar Committee. As a result, the tribes notified earlier as Criminal Tribes, stood denotified, and the name ‘Denotified Tribes’ (DTs) has been in use for them since then. Nomads are people who are constantly on the move and have no permanent home. On the other hand, Semi-nomadic groups tend to have a fixed abode for a part of the year and are itinerant in the rest of the year. Most DNTs are categorized as SC,ST or OBC though a few of the DNTs are not covered in any of these categories. Against the above background, a National Commission for Denotified, Nomadic and Semi-Nomadic Tribes (NCDNT) was constituted which had made certain recommendations. In addition, the National Advisory Council (NAC) constituted a Working Group on Denotified, Nomadic and Semi-Nomadic Tribes in 2011 which also proposed a detailed set of recommendations for the DNTs. The Cabinet, in its meeting held on 30.1.2014 considered the recommendations of the NCDNT and NAC and decided as under:-
(i) the establishment through an executive order, of a National Commission for Denotified, Nomadic and Semi-Nomadic Tribes for a period of three years to identify the castes of DNTs which have been included in the lists of SCs/STs/OBCs and the castes which have not been included in any of these categories and to suggest appropriate measures for their development.
(ii) framing of an appropriate scheme for grant of Pre-matric and Post-matric Scholarships and Construction of Hostels for students belonging to Denotified, Nomadic and Semi-Nomadic Tribes not included in the lists of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes after following the requisite process including appraisal by the Expenditure Finance Committee
Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment
http://socialjustice.nic.in/pdf/pressbrief-NCDNT.pdf
Ministry Name – Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment
Date of decision: 30.1.2014.
Subject: In-principle approval of the Cabinet on the Recommendations of (i) the National Commission for Denotified, Nomadic and Semi-nomadic Tribes (NCDNT) and (ii) the National Advisory Council (NAC).
Background – The British Government had from time to time declared some of the tribes which, according to them, were involved in criminal activities as Criminal Tribes. The Criminal Tribes Act (CTA), 1871 provided that if a Local Government had reason to believe that any tribe, gang or class of people is addicted to the systematic commission of non-bailable offences, it may, with the authorization of the Governor General, declare such tribe etc. as a "Criminal Tribe". The CTA was revised in 1911 and in 1924. The CTA, 1924, was repealed by the Criminal Tribes Laws (Repeal) Act, 1952 on the recommendations of the Shri Ananthasayanam Ayyangar Committee. As a result, the tribes notified earlier as Criminal Tribes, stood denotified, and the name ‘Denotified Tribes’ (DTs) has been in use for them since then. Nomads are people who are constantly on the move and have no permanent home. On the other hand, Semi-nomadic groups tend to have a fixed abode for a part of the year and are itinerant in the rest of the year. Most DNTs are categorized as SC,ST or OBC though a few of the DNTs are not covered in any of these categories. Against the above background, a National Commission for Denotified, Nomadic and Semi-Nomadic Tribes (NCDNT) was constituted which had made certain recommendations. In addition, the National Advisory Council (NAC) constituted a Working Group on Denotified, Nomadic and Semi-Nomadic Tribes in 2011 which also proposed a detailed set of recommendations for the DNTs. The Cabinet, in its meeting held on 30.1.2014 considered the recommendations of the NCDNT and NAC and decided as under:-
(i) the establishment through an executive order, of a National Commission for Denotified, Nomadic and Semi-Nomadic Tribes for a period of three years to identify the castes of DNTs which have been included in the lists of SCs/STs/OBCs and the castes which have not been included in any of these categories and to suggest appropriate measures for their development.
(ii) framing of an appropriate scheme for grant of Pre-matric and Post-matric Scholarships and Construction of Hostels for students belonging to Denotified, Nomadic and Semi-Nomadic Tribes not included in the lists of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes after following the requisite process including appraisal by the Expenditure Finance Committee
Tuesday, September 1, 2015
Report on Sub-Categorization within OBCs dated 02.03.2015 by National Commission for Backward Classes
Source for PDF
http://www.ncbc.nic.in/Writereaddata/Report%20on%20Sub-Categorization%20within%20OBCs%20-2015-%20Pandey635681469081640773.pdf
Centrally Sponsored Scheme of Dr.Ambedkar Pre-Matric and Post-Matric Scholarship for DNTs (Revised/Amended w.e.f 16.04.2015)
Source
http://socialjustice.nic.in/pdf/ambedkar-prepost-DNTs2015.pdf
http://socialjustice.nic.in/pdf/ambedkar-prepost-DNTs2015.pdf
Tuesday, May 5, 2015
My Second Article Published with ISSN on Denotified and Nomadic Tribes in Oct. to Dec., 2014 Vol. 03, Issue 04 ISSN : 2278-3067 Sangharsh/Struggle : e-Journal of Dalit Literary Studies
http://www.dalitsahitya.com/static/media/data/Sangharsh_Vol_03_Issue_04_2014.pdf
Oct. to Dec., 2014
Vol. 03, Issue 04
ISSN : 2278-3067 Sangharsh/Struggle : e-Journal of
Dalit Literary Studies
Oct. to Dec., 2014
Vol. 03, Issue 04
ISSN : 2278-3067 Sangharsh/Struggle : e-Journal of
Dalit Literary Studies
Wednesday, March 18, 2015
Monday, March 9, 2015
KALIDAS SHINDE: Budget for Development of Denotified and Nomadic T...
KALIDAS SHINDE: Budget for Development of Denotified and Nomadic T...: Press Information Bubearu Government of India Ministry of Tribal Affairs Development of Nomadic Tribes ...
Monday, March 2, 2015
Conference Paper on Denotified Tribes By Nilisha Desai
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/261107765_Ethno-historical_Identity_Issue_of_De-notified_Tribe_in_Kolhapur
Friday, February 27, 2015
Budget for Development of Denotified and Nomadic Tribes,2015
Press Information Bubearu
Government of India
Ministry of Tribal Affairs
Government of India
Ministry of Tribal Affairs
Development of Nomadic Tribes 25-February-2015 14:29 IST
Rs.13.00 crore have been allocated under 12th Plan for formulation and implementation of scheme for educational and economic development of De-notified Nomadic Tribes (DNTs).
As informed by the Office of Registrar General & Census Commissioner, India, that office conducts Population Census wherein data on entire population living in the country at the time of Census operations is collected. However, figures separately and specifically for nomadic communities are not collected in Censust.
The Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, in order to identify the Denotified, Nomadic and Semi-Nomadic Communities, assess their problems and suggest appropriate measures for their development, a National Commission has started functioning from January 09,2015. The Government of India has also launched two new schemes on January 01,2015 namely, Dr. Ambedkar Centrally Sponsored Scheme of Pre-matric & Post-matric Scholarship, and Nanaji Deshmukh Centrally Sponsored Scheme for Construction of Hostels for the welfare of these sections of the society. The States like, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, NCT of Delhi, Rajasthan Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh are also implementing schemes for the welfare of the DNTs.
This information was given by Union Minister of State for Tribal Affairs Shri Mansukhbhai Dhanjibhai Vasava in a written reply in Rajya Sabha today.
samir/
Source:
http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=115818
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)