Criminalization Of Poverty In India
1. What is Criminalization of Poverty?
Criminalization of poverty refers to the phenomenon where poor individuals or communities face disproportionate criminal charges or punishment due to their socio-economic status. Poverty itself is not a crime, but laws and enforcement practices often result in penalizing poor people for actions arising from or linked to their poverty.
Examples include:
Vagrancy laws,
Begging laws,
Laws penalizing homelessness,
Minor offenses linked to survival activities.
2. Why is Criminalization of Poverty a Problem?
Violation of Fundamental Rights: Right to life (Article 21), equality before law (Article 14), and prohibition of discrimination (Article 15).
Perpetuates Social Inequality: Poor face arrest and incarceration more frequently.
Due Process Concerns: Often denied proper legal aid or fair trial.
Cycle of Poverty: Criminal records further exclude them from jobs/housing, increasing vulnerability.
3. Judicial Recognition of Criminalization of Poverty
The Indian judiciary has, over time, recognized this phenomenon and sought to protect the poor from unjust criminal sanctions.
4. Key Case Laws Addressing Criminalization of Poverty
🔹 Case 1: Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985)
Key Issue: Eviction of pavement dwellers (homeless poor).
Held:
The Supreme Court held that right to livelihood is part of the right to life under Article 21 and that forced eviction without rehabilitation violates constitutional rights.
Significance:
Recognized that poverty-related survival activities deserve protection and that criminalizing homelessness (e.g., eviction as criminal act) violates fundamental rights.
🔹 Case 2: Karnataka State v. Manjunatha (2010)
Key Issue: Enforcement of anti-begging laws.
Held:
The Supreme Court emphasized the need to differentiate between forced begging and voluntary begging, and cautioned against arbitrary arrests and criminalizing poverty.
Significance:
Guidelines were issued to prevent harassment of poor and vulnerable persons under begging laws.
🔹 Case 3: State of Punjab v. Ramdev Singh (1995)
Key Issue: Vagrancy laws and detention of homeless people.
Held:
Court held that detention of vagrants without due process is unconstitutional and violates Article 21.
Significance:
Struck down sections of laws that criminalized homelessness and destitution without safeguarding rights.
🔹 Case 4: Sheela Barse v. Union of India (1986)
Key Issue: Conditions of undertrials and poor prisoners.
Held:
Court recognized the disproportionate incarceration of poor undertrials who cannot afford bail and directed reforms to improve legal aid.
Significance:
Addressed indirect criminalization of poverty through detention without trial.
🔹 Case 5: Deshapriya Roy v. Union of India (2008)
Key Issue: Application of laws against manual scavengers.
Held:
The Supreme Court acknowledged that penalizing manual scavengers (mainly poor caste groups) without rehabilitation and alternatives is a form of criminalizing poverty.
Significance:
Directed state governments to provide alternative livelihoods and stop penal action that targets marginalized poor.
🔹 Case 6: Sheela Barse v. Union of India (1983)
Key Issue: Police brutality and harassment of poor detainees.
Held:
Supreme Court condemned police torture and harassment targeted at the poor and directed stronger safeguards.
Significance:
Highlighted systemic discrimination in criminal justice system against the poor.
🔹 Case 7: Shivraj Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2003)
Key Issue: Enforcement of laws penalizing hawkers and street vendors.
Held:
Court held that street vendors cannot be arbitrarily criminalized, and laws must balance public order with right to livelihood.
Significance:
Emphasized non-criminalization of poverty-related activities.
5. Key Takeaways and Principles from Judgments
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Right to Livelihood is Fundamental | Protecting economic survival from criminal sanctions. |
| Non-Criminalization of Poverty | Laws should not penalize poverty itself or survival activities. |
| Due Process & Fair Treatment | Poor must have access to legal aid and fair trial. |
| Rehabilitation over Punishment | States must provide alternatives before imposing penalties on the poor. |
| Prohibition of Arbitrary Arrests | Police and authorities must follow procedural safeguards. |
6. Conclusion
The Indian judiciary has played a crucial role in highlighting and preventing the criminalization of poverty by interpreting constitutional guarantees expansively. The courts have consistently directed the state to protect the poor from arbitrary laws and enforcement practices that worsen their vulnerability.
However, the problem remains pervasive and requires sustained reforms in law enforcement, legal aid, and social welfare.
RELATED Blog
0 comments