EDITORIAL: The Punjab government’s decision to raise the age threshold under the provincial vagrancy law from 14 to 16 is a welcome, if belated, correction.
The change acknowledges an obvious reality: young people involved in begging are often victims of circumstances and exploitation rather than perpetrators of a social nuisance.
The tougher penalties for parents and guardians who involve children in begging, along with provisions for rehabilitation and reintegration, are therefore steps in the right direction and represent a more humane approach to a problem too often viewed primarily as a law-and-order issue.
Yet the reform stops short of where it ought to go. The law should draw a clear distinction between a child and a minor, while recognising that, for purposes of protection from exploitation, every person below 18 requires the protection of the law.
The choice of 16 as the new threshold is difficult to justify. A 16-year-old does not become substantially less vulnerable to coercion, exploitation or abuse than a 15-year-old simply by crossing an administrative age boundary.
Indeed, adolescents aged 16 and 17 may remain particularly vulnerable to exploitative work, including begging. They may be physically more capable than younger children, but they are still not adults and may lack the independence, resources and protection necessary to resist exploitation.
The amendment is also notable for strengthening the administrative machinery of the law.
The proposed controller is to coordinate anti-vagrancy operations across the province, monitor welfare homes and rehabilitation facilities, maintain a centralised database, and oversee rehabilitation and reintegration. Such arrangements could improve consistency and accountability, provided they are accompanied by proper oversight and adequate safeguards for those taken into custody.
The more fundamental question, however, is how the state views children found begging. They should not be reduced to statistics in an anti-vagrancy campaign, nor should their presence on the streets automatically make them subjects of punitive enforcement. A child begging at a traffic signal may be a victim of poverty, neglect, family pressure or organised exploitation.
The appropriate response must therefore include protection, education, and rehabilitation, alongside firm action against those who exploit children.
This is particularly important in the case of 16- and 17-year-olds. If the law recognises that young people below 18 can remain vulnerable and in need of special safeguards, there is little reason to exclude them from the ambit of the vagrancy framework.
The more coherent approach would be to recognise all persons under 18 as minors for purposes of protection against exploitation, while placing the burden of enforcement on those who use them for begging.
Raising the threshold from 14 to 16 is a step forward. But the government should go further and ensure that no minor is left outside the law’s protective ambit simply because he or she has crossed the age of 16.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2026
Comments