The provided source material focuses exclusively on political debates surrounding the Election Commission of India (EC) and its proposals to regulate promises made by political parties, commonly referred to as "freebies." The sources detail jurisdictional disputes between the EC, the Supreme Court, political parties, and the central government regarding the regulation of poll promises and their financial viability. There is no information in the provided text regarding consumer free samples, promotional offers, product trials, brand freebies, or mail-in sample programs. Consequently, a comprehensive article on consumer freebies cannot be generated from this data.
The Election Commission proposed amending the Model Code of Conduct to require political parties to provide authentic information regarding the financial viability of their poll promises. This proposal was made amid a debate distinguishing between "freebies" and "welfare measures." The EC wrote to recognized national and state parties, requesting their views on the proposal by October 19. The Commission argued that offering or distributing freebies is a policy decision of the party, and whether such policies are financially viable or have adverse effects on the economic health of a state is a matter to be considered and decided by the voters.
However, this proposal faced significant opposition and legal scrutiny. The Congress party asserted that the EC lacks the jurisdiction to regulate issues such as freebies. In a letter to the EC, Congress general secretary Jairam Ramesh stated that such issues are part of the dialectics of a vibrant democratic system and depend on the wisdom and discernment of the electorate. The Congress position is that neither the EC, the government, nor the courts have the jurisdiction to justiciate or regulate these promises, which should be decided by the electorate through electoral punishment or reward.
The Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPI-M) also criticized the EC's move as "unwarranted." The CPI-M noted that the EC had previously declined to be part of a committee to examine freebies as proposed by the Supreme Court and had stated in an affidavit that it cannot regulate policy decisions of political parties. The CPI-M questioned the reversal of this stance, suggesting it might be due to pressure from the executive. Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal similarly criticized the EC's proposal, suggesting the watchdog itself might need a model code of conduct.
The Supreme Court of India has been actively involved in this issue. The Court issued notices to the Centre and the EC regarding a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that sought to restrain political parties from promising freebies during the pre-election period. The petitioner argued that the unregulated promise of freebies imposes a significant and unaccounted financial burden on the public exchequer and affects the level playing field between parties. A bench headed by the Chief Justice noted that freebies can shake the roots of free and fair elections and vitiates the purity of the election process. The Court observed that it cannot legislate but acknowledged the issue as serious.
The Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta, supported the PIL filed by BJP leader Ashwini Upadhyay, highlighting that pre-election promises made without assessment of financial implications adversely affect the economic health of the state. Conversely, the Centre, represented by the Solicitor General, indicated a keenness to regulate the "freebie culture," which the Prime Minister termed "dangerous."
Sources indicate a complex interplay of constitutional remits and political strategy. Some sources argue that the EC’s role is limited to ensuring free and fair polls and implementing election laws, not judging the wisdom of policy promises. Others argue that unchecked promises undermine responsible electioneering. The Supreme Court has previously held that freebies offered in manifestos do not constitute "corrupt practices" or "electoral offences" under the Representation of the People Act, adding a layer of legal complexity to the regulation efforts.
Conclusion
The provided documentation outlines a significant political and legal conflict in India regarding the authority to regulate promises of freebies made by political parties during elections. The Election Commission's attempt to introduce guidelines for financial disclosure was met with resistance from opposition parties claiming jurisdictional overreach and supported by a Supreme Court petition seeking stricter regulation. The debate centers on the balance between political freedom to make promises, the economic impact on the state, and the role of constitutional bodies versus the electorate in evaluating these commitments.
Sources
- EC doesn't have jurisdiction to regulate issues like freebies: Congress
- Supreme Court notice to Centre, EC on plea against freebies
- Freebies Debate: EC Proposes Parties Should Give Information On Financial Viability Of Poll Promises
- Centre, EC get SC notice on fresh plea against freebies
- Question mark over ECI's role in politics of freebies
- Freebies: EC’s U-turn is uncalled for