In this case, a Division Bench of the Supreme Court was concerned with Beggars Homes and the conditions of the inmates.

The Bench held that “…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”

The Bench further held that Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, has been interpreted in an expansive and purposive manner and “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 Supreme Court issued directions under the following heads, in respect of all Beggars’ Homes across the country to ensure that the improved conditions are continuously maintained:

1. Preventive Healthcare and Sanitation
2. Infrastructure and capacity
3. Nutrition and Food Safety
4. Vocational Training and Rehabilitation
5. Legal Aid and Awareness
6. Child and Gender Sensitivity
7. Accountability and Oversight
8. Implementation and Compliance

The Bench further directed the Union of India, through the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, to frame and notify model guidelines to facilitate uniform implementation of the directions across all States and Union Territories, within three months.

The detailed directions can be accessed at 2364720032025-09-12-620452.pdf