New Delhi: An unelected candidate’s speech cannot be an official statement of intent for the budgetary plans of the future government, the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) has suggested in its suggestions about the proposed conditions for the expert body that will look into the issue. “Freedom”.
Promises made during an election speech are the broad ideological position of a candidate or party on various issues of civic welfare – positions that allow citizens to make informed voting decisions, AAP said in its fresh written submission filed on Tuesday. ThePrint has a copy of the submission.
The party, which has officially defended the so-called freebies in the Supreme Court, submitted that once an elected government is formed, it can decide whether to modify, accept, reject the various plans proposed during the election. or replace or not.
The amendment is made to meet the budget needs of voters and the government, and after incorporating feedback received from voters and experts, it added.
A bench headed by Chief Justice of India NV Ramana is hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, who has sought a ban “for free”.
In The last During the hearing, the court refused to consider the idea of de-recognition of political parties giving “free gifts”. However, it was observed that “free gifts” are different from the welfare schemes launched by the governments.
The next hearing will be on August 17.
Read also: ‘Abuse for welfare schemes’: How is AAP trying to fight BJP after Modi’s ‘revdi’ remark?
‘Violation of free speech’
Coming in support of the PIL, the central government has agreed to the court’s proposal to set up an expert body to recommend guidelines against “free gifts”.
Initiating a broad-based consultation process with regard to the proposed panel, the bench had asked Upadhyay, the central government and AAP to give their suggestions on the terms of reference of the committee.
AAP has already filed an application against Upadhyay’s PIL.
It said election promises such as free water, electricity or public transport are not “free gifts” but are examples of the state discharging its constitutional responsibility to create a more equitable society.
With regard to the proposed terms of reference for the expert body, Arvind
The Kejriwal-led party said the panel should be tasked with suggesting measures to control actual financial expenditure and not to regulate election speeches.
The ban on electoral speech, imposed by the executive or the judiciary, would be “unconstitutional” and also “violating free speech”, it said, adding that such reduction is not protected by exceptions under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. Which allows for “reasonable restrictions” on free speech.
If concerns over fiscal deficit and responsibility are indeed the point of action, then targeting and regulating election speech would be nothing more than an “unnecessary goose chase”. This is because electoral promises “proxy to regulate actual financial expenditure” are wholly unsuitable.
Addressing fiscal deficit issues by attacking election speech would damage the “democratic quality of elections”, as it would prevent parties from communicating their ideological stances on welfare, the party said. It states that this will not lead to any progress towards achieving fiscal responsibility.
In the interest of fiscal responsibility, the AAP said, the panel should focus on the point of “actual outflow” of funds from the exchequer, that is, the budgetary actions of already elected governments and their financial planning processes.
(Edited by Tony Rae)
Read also: Electricity or school? Roads or Hospitals? Why it is not easy for Modi to decide ‘freebies’