During the hearing of a plea to curb the practice of giving or distributing “irrational free gifts”, CJI Ramana said political parties have lost elections despite promising freebies.
During the hearing of a plea to curb the practice of giving or distributing “irrational free gifts”, CJI Ramana said political parties have lost elections despite promising freebies.
Voters, if given a chance, would prefer to earn a respectable income through welfare schemes like MGNREGA and create public wealth in rural India. The Supreme Court on Wednesday said that freebies do not always decide the outcome of elections for political parties.
A bench headed by Chief Justice of India NV Ramana said there have been instances when parties have lost elections despite their promises of freebies.
“Given an opportunity, they (voters) will opt for respectable earnings. For example, MGNREGA offered respectable earnings and also created public wealth in rural areas. So, I do not think that promises alone decide the outcome of elections… There are many instances when parties have not been elected despite their promises,” Chief Justice Ramana said.
The court was hearing a plea to curb the practice of giving or distributing “irrational freebies” at the cost of public money, especially in debt-ridden states during elections.
The court said its primary concern is “the right way to spend public money”. The court indicated that the promises of free gifts come at the cost of the exchequer. “At the end of the day, we have to say there is no free lunch,” Bench said.
The court is dealing with rival disputes raised in the case. On one hand, while freebies are a waste of public money and a sure way to economic destruction for the country, on the other hand it is incentives and schemes to ensure public welfare.
We cannot stop political parties from making promises. But the question is, what exactly does a ‘valid promise’ consist of? Can the promise of some units of electricity, water, electricity be considered free? Can we accept the promises of consumer products, electronics as a welfare measure for all? The court asked.
‘Don’t link free facilities with welfare schemes’
Chief Justice Ramana said freebies should not be confused with welfare schemes launched by the states.
Senior Advocate P. Wilson for Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam submitted that the Constitution has empowered the states to implement welfare schemes. The term ‘freebies’ cannot be interpreted to limit the ability of states to provide welfare.
The Bench observed that Article 38 of the Constitution enjoins the States to ensure the welfare of the people, “to reduce inequalities in income and status, facilities and services not only among individuals but also among groups of people living in different areas.” striving to eliminate inequalities in opportunities or engaged in different occupations”.
The court said the parties involved, including the Centre, state parties, should give their opinion and recommendations on the issue of freebies which is getting more complicated. The court heard the matter next week.
In the last hearing, senior advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for the petitioner Ashwini Upadhyay, said that there is a debt of Rs 15 lakh crore on the states. “Public money should not be misused by political parties whose sole objective is to gain and maintain power,” Mr Singh said.
Senior advocate Arvind Datar, appearing for the petitioner, also said, “Giving laptops, TVs and gold chains cannot be promoting the Directive Principles of State Policy.”
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, agreed with the court’s proposal to set up an expert body to recommend guidelines against freebies.
He added that the “freebie culture” has been “advanced to an art” by some parties.
“Sometimes, elections are fought only on the promise of freebies. It is a dangerous situation if distribution of free gifts is considered as the only way to reach out to the voters… We are leading the country towards a disaster,” Mr Mehta submitted.
The top law officer had also suggested that the proposed expert body should have representatives from national political parties, RBI, NITI Aayog, Finance Commission etc as well as industry members. He pointed out that some of these sectors, such as electricity, were already “stressed” by some state governments providing freebies.
Chief Justice Ramana observed that the court was striving to strike a balance between the welfare needs of the people, especially the poor and downtrodden, and to avoid a national economic loss through the unbridled distribution of generosity by political parties to remain in power. need to be avoided.