The Supreme Court of India and the Debate on Irrational Freebies

The Supreme Court of India has recently intensified its scrutiny of the practice of political parties promising "irrational freebies" to voters during election campaigns. This judicial intervention has sparked a significant national debate concerning the economic implications, constitutional validity, and ethical impact of such promises. The court, along with the Solicitor General of India and various political entities, is grappling with how to address a practice that some argue is an economic disaster and a distortion of the democratic process.

The Supreme Court’s Position and Recommendations

The Supreme Court has characterized the promise of irrational freebies as a "serious issue" that influences voters unduly and shakes the roots of free and fair elections. In a recent hearing, the court noted that such promises are not effectively debated in Parliament, as no political party would voluntarily agree to take away freebies. Consequently, the court recommended the constitution of an expert body comprising individuals capable of effectively scrutinizing the problem and finding a solution.

The bench, led by Chief Justice NV Ramana, expressed skepticism about the likelihood of legislative consensus on the matter. During the proceedings, the Chief Justice remarked, "which political party will agree? Do you think there will be a debate in the Parliament? These days everyone wants freebies." This sentiment underscores the judiciary's view that the issue requires an external or specialized mechanism for resolution rather than relying solely on the political class.

The Centre’s Stance: Economic Disaster and Voter Distortion

Representing the Centre, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta supported the elimination of the practice of promising freebies. He emphasized that freebies pave the way to an "economic disaster" and distort the informed decision-making process of voters. The Centre’s position aligns with concerns raised by top bureaucrats who warned against the deleterious effects of freebie announcements on the economic health of states.

The Election Commission’s Constraints

The Election Commission (EC) has found itself in a difficult position regarding the regulation of freebies. During the hearings, the EC’s counsel indicated that the Commission’s hands were tied by a previous judgment of the apex court on freebies. While the Solicitor General suggested the EC should apply its mind to the matter and have a relook, the EC appeared to view itself as a "Most Favoured Institution" (MFI) that should not be involved in what are essentially political and economic issues.

Legal Challenges and Constitutional Violations

The current judicial focus stems largely from a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, a Delhi BJP leader and advocate. The PIL demands that irrational freebies using public funds be declared unconstitutional. The petitioner argues that such promises violate Articles 14, 162, 266(3), and 282 of the Constitution and amount to bribery and undue influence under Sections 171B and 171C of the Indian Penal Code.

The plea seeks a direction to political parties to refrain from promising or distributing irrational freebies from public funds. It further suggests severe penalties, including the seizure of election symbols and the de-registration of political parties that engage in this practice. The Supreme Court has issued notices to the Centre and the Election Commission regarding this plea.

The Counter-Argument: Welfare vs. Freebies

Not all stakeholders agree with the characterization of these promises as "freebies." The DMK (Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam) argued before the court that welfare schemes designed to minimize income inequalities and provide essential services cannot be construed as freebies. These parties distinguish between populist handouts and genuine welfare measures intended to uplift the poor and economically weaker sections of society.

However, critics argue that irrational freebies eat away at the development budget of indebted states. Funds that could be used for physical infrastructure (power, roads) and social infrastructure (education, health) are diverted to sustain these promises, potentially hindering long-term growth and job creation.

The "Revdi Culture" and Social Impact

The debate has also permeated social discourse, with Prime Minister Narendra Modi warning against the "revdi culture" (a term referring to freebies). The Supreme Court has echoed concerns that freebies may discourage work, with one bench observing from personal experience that people in states providing free rations and money often become unwilling to work. The court remarked, "Are we not creating a class of parasites?" highlighting the potential for freebie culture to erode the work ethic and create dependency.

Conclusion

The debate over irrational freebies in India is a complex intersection of electoral politics, economic policy, and constitutional law. The Supreme Court has taken a proactive stance, seeking to establish an expert body to address the issue, while the Centre supports curbing the practice to prevent economic disaster. The Election Commission faces procedural hurdles, and political parties remain divided between viewing these promises as essential welfare measures or damaging populist tactics. As the legal process unfolds, the outcome will likely set significant precedents for how electoral promises are regulated in India.