Later Consideration of constitution of expert body To examine issues related to political parties promising free goods to voters in their election manifestos, the Supreme Court has stayed this and referred the issue to a three-judge bench. Too referred to in depth I have the correctness of the earlier judgment S Subramaniam Balaji Vs Tamil Nadu (2013), which ruled that making promises in the manifesto would not be a corrupt practice. Proceedings before a bench headed by now-retired Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, last week, offered critical perspectives on the political economy of welfareism, socialism and pre-poll promises of ‘free gifts’. During a few hearings, the Bench moved from vague references to ‘free gifts’ to material goods and election declarations of commodities as an incentive to vote and to make a rational distinction between welfare schemes and socio-economic concessions on the one hand. . This clarity was lacking in the early stages itself, as the ubiquitous references to ‘free gifts’ and railroads for their approach to the welfare of political parties dominated the discourse. Those who have approached the court against irrational claims have got the support of the central government. The government’s stand comes as no surprise, following Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s public comments disapproving of the ‘freebie’ culture.
However, the government was reluctant to examine the issue through discussions between political parties and favored a judicially appointed panel. But, such a panel cannot achieve much. Most parties oppose any binding on their right to appeal to voters through their choice and, if elected, use their mandate to distribute finances and resources, subject to legislation and legislative approval. Huh. It is, therefore, no surprise that the Bench in its context has questioned the scope of judicial intervention in the matter and whether any enforceable order can be passed. A two-judge bench judgment in 2013 had examined the issue in the backdrop of DMK coming to power in 2006 on a promise to distribute television sets to the poor and implement it. It ruled that the Directive Principles of State Policy permit such schemes and the expenditure of public money on them cannot be questioned if it is based on appropriations passed by the legislature. It also concluded that election promises by a party cannot be termed as ‘corrupt conduct’. That bench had also rejected the argument that giving benefits to all, that is, poor and rich, would violate the criterion of equality in Article 14. When it came to the generosity of the state, he said, the rule against treating unequals as equals would not apply. Does this mean that the Directive Principles can abrogate Fundamental Rights, as argued by the petitioners? It is also waiting for the exam.