Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
Section 139
Kidnapping or maiming a child for purposes of begging
(1) Whoever kidnaps any child or, not being the lawful guardian of such child, obtains the custody of the child, in order that such child may be employed or used for the purposes of begging shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
(2) Whoever maims any child in order that such child may be employed or used for the purposes of begging shall be punishable with imprisonment which shall not be less than twenty years, but which may extend to life which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person’s natural life, and with fine.
(3) Where any person, not being the lawful guardian of a child employs or uses such child for the purposes of begging, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he kidnapped or otherwise obtained the custody of such child in order that such child might be employed or used for the purposes of begging.
(4) In this section “begging” means—
(i) soliciting or receiving alms in a public place, whether under the pretence of singing, dancing, fortune telling, performing tricks or selling articles or otherwise;
(ii) entering on any private premises for the purpose of soliciting or receiving alms;
(iii) exposing or exhibiting, with the object of obtaining or extorting alms, any sore, wound, injury, deformity or disease, whether of himself or of any other person or of an animal;
(iv) using such child as an exhibit for the purpose of soliciting or receiving alms.
Why this exists
Child begging linked to trafficking, kidnapping, and deliberate mutilation has long been a serious social problem in India, often run by organized rackets that exploit children for profit. Earlier laws like the Indian Penal Code (Section 363A) and various state Prevention of Begging Acts tried to address this, but enforcement was weak and definitions were narrow. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 retained and modernized this protection, imposing harsher minimum sentences and including a presumption clause (sub-section 3) to make prosecution easier when a non-guardian is caught using a child to beg, since proving kidnapping directly is often difficult in trafficking cases.
How courts read it
Under the predecessor provision, Section 363A IPC, courts held that the presumption clause (similar to sub-section 3 here) does not violate the presumption of innocence guaranteed under Article 21, because it only shifts the evidentiary burden after the prosecution proves the basic facts — that the accused was not the lawful guardian and was using the child for begging. Courts have also emphasized that 'maiming' includes any act of disabling or disfiguring done with the intent to elicit public sympathy, and have treated organized begging rackets as aggravated offenses warranting strict sentencing. No major Supreme Court ruling specifically on BNS Section 139 exists yet since the law is new.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: This law only punishes kidnapping children for begging, not people who merely 'use' them without kidnapping.
Fact: Sub-section 3 covers even people who didn't personally kidnap the child — if they use a child (not their own) for begging, the law presumes they wrongfully took custody, unless they prove otherwise. - Myth: Parents can never be punished under this law since they are the child's guardians.
Fact: The law's presumption in sub-section 3 applies only to non-guardians; however, if a parent is shown to have arranged for the child's maiming or exploitation, other provisions of law may still apply. - Myth: 'Begging' only means directly asking strangers for coins.
Fact: The law's definition is much broader — it includes singing, dancing, fortune-telling, selling trinkets, displaying wounds or disabilities, and even entering private property to solicit money.