The Supreme Court of India has initiated steps to examine the growing issue of political parties offering freebies to voters during elections. This judicial intervention seeks to understand the economic impact of such promises and their influence on electoral processes. The court's decision to form an expert committee follows a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition filed by Ashwini Upadhyay, which requested directions to regulate the distribution of freebies by political parties.
The Formation of the Expert Committee
On August 3, the Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice NV Ramana and Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli decided to establish an expert group to study the impact of freebies on the economy. The proposed committee is intended to include members from the government, Opposition parties, Niti Aayog, the Election Commission, the Finance Commission, and the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). The court has directed the Centre, the Election Commission, senior advocate and Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal, and the petitioners to submit their suggestions on the composition of this expert body within seven days. The matter is scheduled for further hearing on August 11.
The core objective of this committee is to analyze how freebies affect the economy and to explore ways to regulate their announcement during elections. The court emphasized the need to balance public welfare with economic stability, noting that "the poor need to be fed but public welfare needs to be balanced because the economy is losing money due to freebies."
Judicial Concerns Regarding Freebies
The Supreme Court has highlighted several critical issues associated with the culture of freebies. These concerns are not new; the court has previously addressed this matter in 2013 and 2021. The primary apprehensions include:
- Encouraging Unemployment: The court observed that free rations and direct cash transfers might discourage people from seeking employment, thereby reducing the labor force.
- Misallocation of Resources: States prioritizing freebies often neglect essential services such as salaries for judicial officers and public infrastructure development.
- Fiscal Burden: The economic sustainability of freebies is a major concern. For instance, in Punjab, subsidies constitute 16% of the total revenue, pushing the state's economy toward bankruptcy.
- Violation of Electoral Processes: The court cautioned that using election-time incentives to sway voters undermines the principles of free and fair elections.
Past Supreme Court Observations
- 2013 Subramaniam Balaji Case: The Supreme Court ruled that matters concerning freebies fall within the domain of legislative policy and are beyond judicial scrutiny. It also noted that such expenditures cannot be deemed unlawful or a "corrupt practice," especially since they aim to advance Directive Principles of State Policy.
- 2021 Expert Panel Proposal: The court previously proposed an expert panel including NITI Aayog, RBI, and political representatives, but no concrete action followed.
- 2022 Election Freebies Review: The court flagged concerns regarding political parties announcing unsustainable schemes without clarity on funding sources.
Legal and Expert Perspectives
Legal experts and senior advocates have expressed mixed opinions on the effectiveness of forming a committee. Many view it as a potential "burial by committee," suggesting the issue might be delayed rather than resolved.
Senior counsel Rajeev Dhavan questioned the committee's ability to answer the fundamental question: "What will be the effect of these freebies on elections?" He further noted that for any recommendation to be enforced, electoral law would need to be changed, which would be difficult to implement. He highlighted the jurisdictional challenge: "The reason is that it is a political party which is announcing these freebies, so will they go after the party or the politician announcing it. They can’t disqualify parties."
Senior Supreme Court advocate Sanjay Hegde echoed similar sentiments, stating that the issue of jurisdiction will only arise if the apex court decides to act on the committee's recommendations. As of now, he believes it appears to be a "burial by committee."
The petitioner's counsel, Vikas Singh, suggested drafting a model code of conduct for the Election Commission to prevent parties from announcing freebies to lure voters.
Divergent Views on Freebies
While criticism of freebies is prominent, there are arguments supporting their role in social welfare. The Indian Civil Liberties Union (ICLU) founder and Supreme Court lawyer Anas Tanwir asserted that freebies are necessary for a welfare state. He observed, "A majority of the population requires it," and suggested that the issue of Electoral Bonds affects free and fair elections far more than freebies do.
The Supreme Court has also acknowledged the distinction between welfare schemes and freebies. Welfare measures are considered essential for maintaining the dignity of life, such as healthcare, education, and social protection, and aim to accelerate human development. In contrast, freebies are defined as mass distribution of non-merit goods that drain government revenue and reduce incentives for work, distorting the economic balance. Examples of freebies include free distribution of laptops, scooters, and household appliances, whereas welfare examples include the Public Distribution System (PDS) and state support for education and health.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court's move to form an expert committee marks a significant development in the ongoing debate over political freebies in India. While the committee aims to provide a structured analysis of the economic impact and regulatory mechanisms, legal experts remain skeptical about the tangible outcomes, citing jurisdictional and enforcement challenges. The court's previous observations emphasize the need to balance social welfare with fiscal responsibility. The upcoming hearing on August 11 will determine the final composition of the committee and the direction of this judicial intervention.