Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India, Division Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan has directed that all Beggars’ Homes across the country must maintain detailed records of deaths arising from negligence, inadequate facilities, or failure to provide timely medical treatment. The Court held that in such cases, the respective State or Union Territory is accountable for paying reasonable compensation to the next of kin of the deceased inmates. It further recorded that, where circumstances warrant, criminal proceedings may be initiated against responsible officials. The judgment was delivered in the context of conditions within certified institutions under the Bombay Prevention of Begging Act, 1959, with the Court reaffirming that the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution extends to persons housed in such facilities

The case stemmed from a series of news reports in May 2000 concerning a cholera and gastroenteritis outbreak among inmates of the Lampur Beggars’ Home in Delhi. Newspapers such as Hindustan Times, Rashtriya Sahara, and Dainik Jagran reported on the hospitalisation of over one hundred inmates, confirmation of multiple deaths, and a magisterial inquiry ordered by the Chief Minister of Delhi. Conflicting statements emerged from government authorities, with the Minister of Social Welfare claiming natural causes of death while the Municipal Commissioner acknowledged fatalities linked to the outbreak.

Also Read: Housing Recognised as Part of Right to Life Under Article 21 | Supreme Court Directs Centre to Explore Revival Fund for Real Estate Insolvency

The petitioner approached the Delhi High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of mandamus to fix responsibility, direct compensation of at least ₹5,00,000 per deceased inmate, and punish errant officials. It was argued that inmates of Beggars’ Homes are entitled to the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution and that concealment of facts violated this guarantee.

During proceedings, the Additional District Magistrate submitted a report on 1 June 2000 attributing deaths to contaminated water sourced from hand pumps, for which both Beggars’ Home authorities and the Public Works Department were held responsible. The Superintendent of the institution, however, disputed this, describing the deaths as natural. On 28 November 2000, the High Court directed a committee constituted in an earlier writ petition to inspect the Lampur and Tahirpur Homes and submit a report on living conditions and causes of death.

The committee’s interim report dated 9 January 2001 described unhygienic conditions, non-functioning chlorination plants, and E. coli contamination. Affidavits filed by the Social Welfare Department annexed death certificates showing cardio-respiratory failure as the cause of death, while a fact-finding report by the SDM, Narela, concluded contamination of the water supply. The High Court, in October 2001, directed departmental proceedings and improvements within six months.

When the petitioner sought further enforcement in 2002, the High Court granted liberty to pursue remedies before an alternative forum, without addressing compliance. The petitioner then brought the matter before the Supreme Court. In its hearings, the Court appointed amici curiae, sought inspections by committees, and monitored reports submitted by government departments. The respondents maintained that disciplinary action had been concluded, penalties imposed, and remedial measures implemented under the Bombay Prevention of Begging Act, 1959, and Delhi Prevention of Begging Rules, 1960.

Justice R. Mahadevan recorded: “Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, has been interpreted by this 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 stated: “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.”

It was further observed: “In contrast, the Indian constitutional framework post–1950 marks a decisive normative shift. 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 Bench recorded: “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.”

On accountability, the Court noted: “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 prepare and publish annual reports on the condition of Beggars’ Homes and to maintain accurate records of illnesses, deaths, and remedial actions taken.”

The Court added: “In every case where the death of an inmate is attributed to negligence, lack of basic facilities, or failure to provide timely medical care, the State/UT shall pay reasonable compensation to the next of kin of the deceased and initiate departmental and, where warranted, criminal proceedings against the officials found responsible.”

“All State Governments/UTs shall frame, notify, and strictly enforce minimum hygiene and sanitation standards in Beggars’ Homes, which shall mandatorily include: continuous access to potable drinking water, functional toilets with proper drainage systems, and regular pest control and vector management measures.”

“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, so as 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.”

“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. 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.”

“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. Where women or children are housed in such Homes, the States/UTs shall provide separate facilities ensuring privacy, safety, and access to child care, 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.”

Also Read: Orissa High Court Dismisses Arbitration Appeal, Holds Clause 18 of Vivad Se Vishwas-II Scheme Mandatory Where Twin Conditions Are Met

“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 prepare and publish annual reports on the condition of Beggars’ Homes, and to 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, the State/UT shall pay reasonable compensation to the next of kin of the deceased; and initiate departmental and, where warranted, criminal proceedings against the officials found responsible.”

“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.”

The appeal was accordingly disposed of with the above observations and directions, with no order as to costs.

Case Title: M.S. Patter v. State of NCT of Delhi and Others
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1115
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. ___ of 2025 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 878 of 2004)
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan