PUNJAB’S move to scrap a colonial-era provision that allows arrest without warrant for having “no ostensible means of subsistence” deserves unequivocal support. Section 55(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, reflects a worldview in which poverty itself was treated as a form of deviance. Its proposed removal is a necessary correction of a moral and constitutional wrong. Colonial laws were never designed to serve citizens; they were crafted to control populations. Provisions that blur the line between poverty and criminality reflect that legacy. To retain them, even in dormant form, is to accept a framework that is fundamentally at odds with constitutional guarantees of dignity, equality and liberty. That such clauses can still be invoked — or misused — underscores the urgency of reform. The argument that outdated laws cause little harm because they are rarely enforced misses the point. Laws do not need to be frequently applied to exert influence. Simply being on the books, they allow police to act on suspicion rather than solid evidence. In this sense, the statute book is not a passive archive; it is an active source of authority that must reflect present-day values.

Punjab’s recognition of Section 55(1)(b) as a “colonial relic” is therefore significant. But it also raises an obvious question: how many more such relics remain? From vagrancy-style provisions to broadly worded public order offences, the legal system still carries traces of an era that prioritised control over rights. Piecemeal reform will not suffice. What is required is a systematic, time-bound review of all colonial-era laws, with a clear mandate to repeal those that no longer meet constitutional standards and to amend those that can be brought in line. The task is not simply legal housekeeping. It is about reshaping the relationship between the state and the citizen. Removing laws that criminalise poverty is a start. Removing the mindset that produced them is the larger, necessary goal.

Published in Dawn, April 8th, 2026