Supreme Court: While deliberating over this appeal revolving around a PIL that was instituted in Delhi High Court highlighting a news report over beggars suffering from Cholera and Gastroenteritis, the Division Bench of J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan*, JJ., deemed it appropriate to issue the following directions on diverse aspects, in respect of all Beggars’ Homes across the country, to ensure that the improved conditions are continuously maintained:
Preventive Healthcare and Sanitation:
-
Every individual admitted to a Beggars’ Home shall mandatorily undergo a medical screening by a qualified medical officer within 24 hours of admission.
-
Monthly health check-ups shall be conducted for all inmates by a designated medical team.
-
A disease surveillance and early warning system shall be established in all Beggars’ Homes, with special protocols for the prevention, detection, and containment of communicable and waterborne diseases.
-
All State Governments / UTs shall frame, notify, and strictly enforce minimum hygiene and sanitation standards in Beggars’ Homes, which shall mandatorily include: (a) continuous access to potable drinking water; (b) functional toilets with proper drainage systems; and (c) regular pest control and vector management measures.
Infrastructure and capacity:
-
All State Governments / UTs shall conduct an independent third-party infrastructure audit of every Beggars’ Home within their jurisdiction at least once every two years.
-
Occupancy in each Beggars’ Home shall not exceed its sanctioned capacity, to prevent overcrowding and the spread of communicable diseases.
-
Adequate provision shall be made for safe housing, ventilation, and access to open spaces, consistent with human dignity.
Nutrition and Food Safety:
-
Every Beggars’ Home shall appoint, or designate from an associated Government Hospital, a qualified Dietician to regularly verify the quality and nutritional standards of food served to inmates.
-
Standardised dietary protocols shall be framed, ensuring nutritional adequacy.
Vocational Training and Rehabilitation:
-
All Beggars’ Homes shall establish or expand vocational training facilities aimed at skill development and economic self-reliance of inmates.
-
The State Governments / UTs shall explore partnerships with governmental agencies, NGOs, and private institutions to introduce diverse trades and employment-oriented training programmes.
-
Periodic assessments shall be conducted to monitor the effectiveness of rehabilitation initiatives and to facilitate the reintegration of released inmates into society.
Legal Aid and Awareness:
-
Inmates shall be informed in a language they understand, of their legal rights, including the right to contest detention orders.
-
State Legal Services Authorities shall designate panel lawyers to visit Beggars’ Homes at least once every three months, to provide free legal assistance and facilitate access to bail, release, or appeal remedies.
Child and Gender Sensitivity:
-
Where women or children are housed in such Homes, the States / UTs shall provide separate facilities ensuring privacy, safety, and access to childcare, education, and counselling.
-
Children found begging shall not be detained in Beggars’ Homes but referred to child welfare institutions under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
Accountability and Oversight:
-
Every State / UT shall constitute a Monitoring Committee for Beggars’ Homes, comprising officials from the Social Welfare Department, Public Health authorities, and independent civil society members, to: (a) prepare and publish annual reports on the condition of Beggars’ Homes; (b) maintain accurate records of illnesses, deaths, and remedial actions taken.
-
In every case where the death of an inmate is attributed to negligence, lack of basic facilities, or failure to provide timely medical care: (a) the State / UT shall pay reasonable compensation to the next of kin of the deceased; and (b) initiate departmental and, where warranted, criminal proceedings against the officials found responsible.
Implementation and Compliance:
-
State Governments / UTs shall maintain a centralised digital database of all inmates, recording details of admission, health, training, release, and follow-up.
-
The above directions shall be implemented within six months from the date of this judgment,
The Union of India, through the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, shall, within three months, frame and notify model guidelines to facilitate uniform implementation of the aforesaid directions across all States and Union Territories.
The Registrar (Judicial) shall circulate a copy of this judgment to the Chief Secretaries of all States and Union Territories as well as to the Secretary, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India, for strict compliance.
Background:
The appellant instituted a PIL, after coming across several articles published in newspapers related to beggars from the Beggars’ Home at Lampur (Narela) suffering from Cholera and Gastroenteritis and around 50 of them, admitted in Hospital. The news item further reported that 107 patients suffering from gastroenteritis had been admitted to the Maharishi Valmiki Infectious Diseases Hospital, Kingsway Camp, Delhi. These patients had been brought and were identified as suffering from cholera. Furthermore, other news articles reported that six inmates of the Beggars’ Home at Lampur (Narela) had died, and that a magisterial inquiry had been ordered by the then Chief Minister of Delhi. The petitioner stated that the news articles described the Delhi Government’s claims of improvement in the Beggars’ Home as “a bundle of lies” asserting that a large number of the beggars were, in fact, destitute.
Alleging that the authorities were misleading the public and concealing the real facts and figures concerning the loss of valuable lives, and further contending that citizens of India — whether free, confined, or detained in jail — are entitled to live dignified lives as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, and that the inmates of the Beggars’ Home are equally entitled to such protection, the appellant approached the High Court.
By order dated 28-11-2000, the High Court directed a special committee to visit the Lampur Beggars’ Home Complex and Tahirpur Shahdara Beggars’ Home, ascertain the conditions prevailing therein, and submit a report, besides finding out the reasons for the death of beggars in Lampur Beggars’ Home. The respondents filed their reply, setting out the remedial measures taken to improve the conditions in the Beggars’ Home, but without effectively contradicting the alleged causes of disease and death.
Taking note of the affidavits and the committee’s report, the High Court disposed of the writ petition, by order dated 15-10-2001 directing the respondents to complete the action in terms of making the beggar homes more habitable. Thereafter, the appellant filed an application seeking implementation of this order. The said application was disposed of by the High Court, without passing a speaking order, merely granting liberty to the appellant to approach the appropriate forum if still dissatisfied.
Hence, the appellant has approached the Supreme Court by way of the present appeal.
Court’s Assessment:
Perusing the case trajectory and issue concerned, the Court noted that historically, the treatment of the indigent persons has oscillated between two diametrically opposed paradigms — criminalisation on the one hand and compassion on the other. Taking note of the legal system prevalent in England, the Court pointed out that the colonial attitude travelled to India under British rule. Vagrancy laws, including the Bombay Prevention of Begging Act, 1959 (and its variants in other states) — were introduced not as instruments of social welfare, but as tools of public order and colonial governance.
However, the Constitutional Framework marked a decisive normative shift. “The founding vision is explicitly welfare- centric, committed to dismantling structural inequalities and ensuring the dignity of every individual”. This has been reflected in the Directive Principles of State Policy — particularly Article 38 (promoting welfare of the people), Article 39(e) (protecting workers’ health and strength), Article 41 (right to work, education, and public assistance), and Article 47 (raising the level of nutrition and public health). “Together, these provisions articulate the constitutional expectation of a compassionate State, one that acts as a trustee of the well-being of the poor, the sick, and the destitute”.
Therefore, beggars’ homes cannot be conceived as quasi-penal facilities. Their role must be restorative, not retributive — places of recovery, skill-building, and reintegration into society. “The term “home” itself carries semantic and normative weight: it denotes safety, dignity, belonging, and care”. Any arrangement that degenerates into a prison-like environment — characterised by overcrowding, unhygienic conditions, arbitrary or involuntary confinement, denial of medical treatment, neglect of mental health needs, or restrictions on personal liberty, is not merely a policy failure, but a constitutional infraction striking at the very heart of Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Court further pointed out that Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, has been interpreted by the Court in an expansive and purposive manner. It is no longer confined to mere animal existence; it embraces within its fold the rights to dignity, health, shelter, privacy, and humane treatment, with heightened protection for the most vulnerable groups. The Court emphasised that the State’s responsibility towards indigent persons is affirmative and non-derogable. A beggars’ home, maintained by the State, is thus a constitutional trust, not a discretionary charity. Its administration must reflect the values of constitutional morality — ensuring liberty, privacy, bodily autonomy, and dignified living conditions.
Referring to Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, In Re, (2016) 3 SCC 700, wherein the Supreme Court held that prisoners are entitled to basic human rights, including the right to live with dignity, the Division Bench herein stated that if such protections are owed to convicts and undertrials, then they must also apply to residents of beggars’ homes, who are not offenders at all.
“Many beggars are victims of structural poverty, mental illness, abandonment, domestic violence, caste discrimination, or social exclusion. Their confinement, if necessary, at all, must be in the nature of protective custody accompanied by comprehensive rehabilitation services, rather than coercive detention”.
Therefore, the Court emphasised that the constitutional evaluation of beggars’ homes requires a paradigm shift — from viewing them as instruments of social control to recognising them as spaces of social justice. The failure to ensure humane conditions in such homes does not merely amount to maladministration; it represents a constitutional breach of the fundamental right to life with dignity, thereby inviting judicial intervention.
Perusing the case, the Court delved into the scope, ambit, and purpose of the Bombay Prevention of Begging Act, 1959, as extended to the National Capital Territory of Delhi and stated that originally, enacted in Maharashtra, the BPBA has been adopted or adapted by several States and Union Territories to regulate and control begging. Its enforcement, however, varies significantly, across jurisdictions, and its constitutional validity has been tested on multiple occasions. The Court stated that while such laws are necessary for States to address begging as a social concern, maintain public order, and facilitate rehabilitation of vulnerable persons, their design and implementation must conform to constitutional guarantees, uphold individual dignity, and reflect constitutional morality, ensuring that regulation does not degenerate into the criminalisation of poverty.
The Court pointed out that the present case arose out of a grave and unfortunate incident at the Beggars’ Home, Lampur (Narela), where contamination of the drinking and cooking water with coliform bacteria resulted in an outbreak of cholera and gastroenteritis among the inmates, leading to multiple deaths and widespread illness, exposing serious lapses in sanitation, hygiene, and healthcare facilities within the institution. The Court also listed its past directions to the authorities concerned over the issues at hand. The Court further took note of the compliance of the High Court’s order dated 15-10-2001.
The Court however stressed that the progress achieved should not remain confined to the Homes that were subject to scrutiny in the present case but must extend to all Homes under the Government of NCT of Delhi. Moreover, all States and Union Territories are required to institutionalise similar reforms in Beggars’ Homes and analogous institutions under their control, so that the constitutional guarantee of life with dignity is meaningfully secured for this most vulnerable section of society.
Therefore, the Court deemed it fit to issue the afore-stated directions.
[M.S. Patter v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1970, decided on 12-9-2025]
*Judgment by Justice R. Mahadevan
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Appellant(s): Dr. Brahm Dutt, Adv. Mr. Surya Kant, AOR Ms. Priyanka Tyagi, Adv.
For Respondent(s): Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, A.S.G. Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR Ms. Sonia Mathur, Adv. Mr. Vvv Pattabhi Ram, Adv. Ms. Seema Bengani, Adv. Mr. Alabhaya Dhamija, Adv. Mr. Shantanu Sharma, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR
Buy Constitution of India HERE
