The sight of children approaching vehicles at traffic junctions, market roads and commercial centres has become an increasingly visible reality across many parts of India. Goa, despite its relatively small geographical size and distinct socio-cultural identity, has not remained insulated from this troubling phenomenon. In busy commercial hubs such as Mapusa, vulnerable children are now increasingly seen in public spaces under circumstances that raise serious concerns regarding neglect, control, exploitation and safety.
The question before society is no longer whether child begging exists. That reality is plainly visible. The real legal question is far more uncomfortable: when does visible poverty end and child exploitation begin?
This question lies at the heart of the ongoing public interest litigation before the High Court of Bombay at Goa concerning child begging and the welfare of rescued minors. The issue has acquired renewed public attention following proceedings involving three children rescued during an anti-begging drive conducted in Mapusa. Subsequent proceedings raised difficult questions involving parental access, biological parentage, institutional care and the long-term welfare of the rescued children.
The complexity of the issue becomes apparent when one moves beyond surface-level assumptions. Child begging is often simplistically viewed as a problem of poverty alone. Poverty is undoubtedly an important factor. However, the legal inquiry cannot end there. The law must also examine whether the child is being used as an instrument for generating sympathy-based income, whether economic control is being exercised by adults, and whether restoration to the same environment would merely return the child to a continuing cycle of exploitation.
This is precisely where Indian child protection law becomes critically important.
Under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, a child found begging, abandoned, neglected, abused or vulnerable may fall within the category of a child in need of care and protection. Once such a child is rescued, the law requires intervention through the Child Welfare Committee. The Committee is the statutory body entrusted with evaluating the child’s immediate safety, welfare and long-term best interests.
This framework is important because the law does not treat biological parentage as the sole determining factor. Even where an adult claims to be the parent of the child, restoration cannot be automatic. The legal standard remains the best interests of the child.
That inquiry necessarily requires authorities to ask difficult but essential questions. Is the child receiving education? Is the child being exposed to physical or emotional harm? Is the child under coercive control? Is economic dependency being created through exploitation of public sympathy? Most importantly, would restoration expose the child to renewed vulnerability?
The statutory framework also recognises the possibility of criminal exploitation. Section 76 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 criminalises cruelty towards children, including conduct likely to cause unnecessary physical or mental suffering. Section 8(2) of the Goa Children’s Act, 2003 addresses child abuse and exploitation. The Goa, Daman and Diu Prevention of Begging Act, 1972 further provides a statutory basis for intervention.
Yet the law on paper alone is insufficient.
This concern was directly addressed in the important Delhi High Court decision in Yatharatha Foundation v Union of India W.P.(C) 2558/2021 before the Delhi High Court. The case examined the continuing problem of child begging in Delhi despite the existence of multiple welfare schemes, rehabilitation programmes and institutional interventions.
The Court recognised a difficult truth: the mere existence of schemes does not necessarily translate into meaningful child protection.
In its order dated 6 September 2023, the Delhi High Court specifically observed that despite the implementation of various schemes and programmes undertaken by multiple agencies and government bodies, child begging remained widespread. The Court therefore considered it necessary to examine the actual impact of rehabilitation measures and directed the Government to furnish detailed information regarding rescued children, steps taken for rehabilitation and the long-term impact of rehabilitation centres.
The relevant question is no longer whether the State has policies. The real question is whether those policies are producing measurable protection for children.
The Delhi High Court went a step further in its subsequent order dated 13 October, 2023. It recognised that multiple government departments and agencies controlled different aspects of child rehabilitation and noted that meaningful results required effective coordination between them.
This observation is particularly relevant for Goa.
Cases involving child begging often involve multiple stakeholders operating simultaneously. These include the police, Child Welfare Committees, the Directorate of Women and Child Development, district administration, labour authorities, shelter homes and non-governmental organisations. If these institutions function in isolation, rescue efforts often remain temporary and fragmented.
A child may be removed from the street today and yet return to the same conditions tomorrow.
That is why rescue alone cannot be the final objective.
Rescue must be followed by structured intervention involving parentage verification, psychological assessment, welfare inquiry, rehabilitation planning and continued monitoring. Where children are brought into Goa from other States and are found begging in public spaces, inter-state coordination may become equally necessary to ensure safe rehabilitation and prevent re-exploitation.
The constitutional position is equally clear. Article 21 guarantees every child the right to live with dignity. Article 21A recognises the right to education. Article 24 prohibits child exploitation in hazardous conditions. These constitutional protections impose positive obligations upon the State.
