Abstract

How law perceives the world is often grounded in systems of values and beliefs adopted by the legal practitioners: their interpretive frameworks, prejudices and dispositions, which shape the very ‘paradigms’ upon which they choose to see the ‘facts’ and frame their methods of inquiries. In other words, ‘truth’ in the eyes of the law is but ex post facto (re)construction of ‘reality’ achieved through narratorial articulation of relevant events and chosen facts. Taking off from here, this article sets out to understand: how do we unpack the social ‘constructivism’ of the a priori assumptions that cloak the idea of the ‘vagabond’ in the legal imagination? How does law ‘frame’ the vagabond as a subset within the ‘human’? What conflates this idea with the notion of the ‘abject’? Why at all is vagabondage perceived as a punishable in the eyes of the law? Invoking a few case studies, both from India and beyond, this article points to the arbitrariness in the juridico-political imagination and the ambiguity in the legal articulation of the ‘vagabond’.