Dignity at stake
It is being increasingly witnessed that children are stationed at traffic signals across Goa, moving between vehicles, tapping on windows, or being carried by adults to elicit sympathy. What may appear as a fleeting act of charity is, in truth, a sustained denial of dignity. The Constitution, through Article 21 of the Constitution of India, is understood to guarantee a life of dignity, not mere survival. When a child is exhibited in a hazardous carriageway, that guarantee is compromised in its most visible form. The law does not countenance a system where vulnerability becomes a tool of subsistence.
Education denied
The position is rendered starker when viewed through Article 21A of the Constitution of India. A child present at a traffic signal is, by definition, a child outside the classroom. The constitutional promise of free and compulsory education is thereby reduced to a paper guarantee. The statutory framework under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and the protective regime of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 impose a positive duty upon the State to identify, rescue, and reintegrate such children.
Roads are not marketplaces
A traffic signal is a controlled safety zone. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 recognises the primacy of regulated movement and the prevention of obstruction. When individuals weave between vehicles, stand within live carriageways, or approach drivers during signal transitions, a foreseeable risk of collision is created. The right to life under Article 21 extends equally to motorists, pedestrians, and the very individuals placed in harm’s way. Roads cannot be converted into spaces of solicitation without undermining public safety. It is therefore required that designated intersections be treated as “no-solicitation zones” within the carriageway, with immediate removal of unsafe activity by the traffic police.
Livelihood and its limits
The jurisprudence of Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation is often invoked to protect informal livelihoods. That protection is real and necessary. Yet, it is also conditional. The right to livelihood is not a licence to endanger life or to instrumentalise children.
A principled distinction must be drawn between legitimate street vending - regulated under the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 and unprotected conduct that involves coercive solicitation, intrusion into traffic lanes, or the use of minors. The right to livelihood cannot become a cloak for child exploitation.
The law against exploitation
Goa is not without specific tools. The Goa Prevention of Begging Act, 1972 contains provisions that penalise the use of children for begging. The criminal law framework and the Juvenile Justice regime together require immediate intervention where minors are found in such circumstances. The issue is thus not the absence of power, but its structured exercise. Police powers to prevent nuisance and obstruction, coupled with preventive jurisdiction under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, enable timely action at identified high-risk junctions. What is required is a clear protocol that authorises and obligates field officers to act without hesitation.
Almsgiving and its consequence
The instinct to give is humane. However, unregulated almsgiving at traffic signals often sustains the very cycle it seeks to alleviate. When money is exchanged in a hazardous zone, the incentive to deploy children in that space is reinforced. The answer is not to criminalise compassion, but to channel it. Public messaging must therefore discourage giving alms at intersections and encourage reporting to Childline (1098) and local authorities. Signage at major signals can convert individual conscience into collective action.
Dignified alternatives
Hunger is real; indignity need not be.
Community-based models exemplified by the tradition of Langar - demonstrate that food can be provided without judgment and without forcing individuals into public solicitation. The State, civil society, and institutions can collaborate to establish community kitchens and feeding centres at appropriate locations, supported where necessary through structured funding. When hunger is addressed with dignity, the compulsion to beg diminishes.
CSR as a catalyst
The statutory framework under Section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013, read with Schedule VII, recognises education, poverty alleviation, and child welfare as legitimate avenues for Corporate Social Responsibility. CSR is not a substitute for the State’s duty; it is a supplement that can be harnessed through a coordinated platform. By aligning corporate initiatives with identified needs: rescue operations, shelter, bridge education, counselling, and skill development, a sustainable rehabilitation pathway can be created. Transparency provisions under corporate law ensure that such efforts are reportable and auditable.
International commitments
India’s obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989 and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966 reinforce the same conclusion: a child has a right not merely to survive, but to develop. The exhibition of children to evoke sympathy is antithetical to that right. It reduces personality to a spectacle and need to a performance. Such practices must be recognised for what they are - a social evil that corrodes dignity.
From observation to action
The way forward is neither indifference nor indiscriminate enforcement. It is a calibrated action. Traffic intersections must be regulated as safety zones. Children found at such sites must be immediately rescued and produced before the Child Welfare Committee. Adults engaged in legitimate vending must be relocated to designated areas. Public giving at signals must be discouraged, and structured alternatives must be strengthened. Monthly reporting and accountability can ensure that these measures do not remain aspirational.
The citizen’s role
Ultimately, this is a civic question as much as a legal one. Each Goan who encounters this situation is placed at a crossroads of conscience. To give alms at a signal is to perpetuate a system that places children in harm’s way. To refrain, to inform, and to support structured alternatives is to act in accordance with the Constitution’s promise of dignity.
The call to action is therefore simple:
