Begging in India: Child Protection, Rehabilitation and Public Accountability

Begging at traffic signals, railway stations, markets and places of worship raises difficult questions about poverty, child protection, disability, employment and the responsibilities of public administration. The public deserves to know how tax revenue supports people in need, while every person deserves to be treated with dignity.

Why do people resort to begging?

People may seek alms because of homelessness, unemployment, inadequate earnings, migration, family breakdown, disability, old age or lack of access to public services. Some may be subjected to coercion or organised exploitation. It would be inaccurate to assume that everyone begging is unwilling to work, involved in crime or part of an organised network.

The original public concern remains urgent: people living without reliable food, shelter or income are often visible in crowded streets while their underlying needs remain unmet. Sustainable responses must distinguish voluntary requests for help from trafficking, coercion and exploitation.

Children used for begging: protection comes first

Children seen begging in trains, at intersections or near religious institutions may face interrupted education, unsafe conditions, hunger and exploitation. A child should not be blamed for being on the street. Authorities should assess safety, identify family and support needs, and involve the child-protection system.

Section 76 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015

Section 76(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 penalises employing or using a child for begging or causing a child to beg. The provision prescribes imprisonment extending to five years and a fine of Rs. 1 lakh; more severe punishment applies where a child is maimed for begging. Section 76(2) also addresses abetment by a person who has actual charge or control of the child.

Sections 139 and 143 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

Section 139 addresses kidnapping or maiming a child for begging. Section 143 deals with trafficking of persons, including exploitation involving forced beggary. These provisions target serious exploitation, not the mere fact that a vulnerable person asks for help. See the official BNS reference text.

Rehabilitation instead of neglect

The Union Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment administers the SMILE (Support for Marginalized Individuals for Livelihood and Enterprise) programme, which includes comprehensive rehabilitation for persons engaged in begging. Its approach covers outreach, healthcare, counselling, education, skills and livelihood linkages, in coordination with states, local bodies and other organisations.

The official SMILE scheme page provides the revised guidelines effective from 10 June 2025. The government programme portal explains its rehabilitation objectives.

Rehabilitation should be accessible to older people, persons with disabilities and people who cannot immediately take up paid work. Providing vocational training without housing, treatment or appropriate social support will not address every situation.

Where do our taxes go?

Citizens pay taxes through multiple channels, including income tax and the Goods and Services Tax, alongside other applicable levies. Questions about spending priorities are legitimate. However, the existence of begging alone does not establish that tax funds have been misused; that conclusion requires evidence from budgets, audits, programme outcomes and investigations.

Governments should publish clear information about funds allocated, funds actually spent, the number of people assisted and whether support has produced durable improvements. Citizens can consult the Union Budget portal, the Comptroller and Auditor General of India and the central RTI portal for relevant records and accountability mechanisms. State and municipal spending must also be examined through their respective budgets and disclosures.

Responsibilities of public administration

Local administrations should not treat the presence of people begging merely as a matter of appearance before a VIP visit or a tourist season. An effective response calls for safe outreach, temporary shelter, child protection, access to identity documents, medical care and referral to suitable services. Public spaces should remain accessible without criminalising poverty or treating all people who beg as offenders.

Public authorities should work with child welfare agencies, social workers, schools, hospitals, employers and credible community organisations. Where organised exploitation is suspected, investigation must focus on those who recruit, coerce or profit from it.

What can improve the situation?

• Protect children: report suspected child exploitation promptly and support safe, child-centred intervention.
• Expand livelihoods: connect people who want work with skills training, job placement and income-support programmes.
• Provide accessible services: ensure shelters, healthcare and disability support are practical to reach and use.
• Measure results: publish transparent rehabilitation and follow-up data, not only the number of people contacted.
• Strengthen accountability: use budgets, audits, grievance systems and lawful information requests to question gaps in delivery.
• Support responsibly: consider verified local organisations and services, while respecting the choices and dignity of people seeking help.

A call for accountable and humane action

India's development should be judged not only by economic growth or infrastructure, but also by whether children can attend school, older people can live safely, persons with disabilities receive appropriate support and people without work have realistic opportunities to rebuild their lives.

The demand for a responsive administration is justified. Ending exploitation and reducing the need to beg will require sustained public investment, careful enforcement of child-protection laws and respectful rehabilitation rather than stigma or sweeping assumptions about people in poverty.

This article is a public-policy commentary with general legal information, reviewed on 8 October 2026. State-specific rules and the facts of individual cases may affect legal outcomes.