NEW DELHI — The Supreme Court on Thursday made strong oral observations against the growing trend of political parties and state governments announcing “freebies” ahead of elections.
A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi made the remarks while hearing a writ petition filed by Tamil Nadu Power Distribution Company Ltd challenging Rule 23 of the Electricity (Amendment) Rules, 2024, relating to tariff subsidies and recovery of power costs.
Cautioning that indiscriminate welfare distribution could adversely impact the country’s long-term economic development, the CJI-led Bench questioned the practice of states absorbing electricity bills and extending blanket subsidies without distinguishing between those who can afford to pay and those who are genuinely marginalised.
“Is it in the public interest that the state is absorbing all these? We are not talking of Tamil Nadu in particular. We are talking of pan-India. Because of freebies, what kind of culture are we developing?” the apex court asked.
“It is understandable that, as a welfare state, you want to provide relief to the marginalised. But without drawing any distinction between those who can afford and those who cannot afford, if you start giving, will it not amount to a sort of appeasing policy?” it further said.
The CJI Surya Kant-led bench said the top court was “really disturbed” by the nationwide trend of announcing welfare schemes shortly before elections.
“Why are schemes suddenly announced near elections? It is high time that all political stalwarts, leaders, parties, and all social engineers revisit everything,” it said.
The Supreme Court noted that even revenue-surplus states are under an obligation to prioritise development expenditure.
“Even if a state is revenue surplus, should that money not be used for roads, hospitals, and schools? Instead, food, clothes and other benefits are distributed near elections. What is happening in this country?” it remarked.
It stressed that governments must prioritise creating employment opportunities rather than expanding unconditional benefits.
“You should create avenues for employment so that people can earn with dignity and self-respect. If everything becomes free — food, electricity, cash transfers — why would people work?” the bench said.
At the same time, the Supreme Court clarified that genuine welfare measures for those who cannot afford basic services remain the government’s responsibility. Notably, the broader issue of poll freebies is already under consideration before the apex court in a pending petition filed by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, in which the Supreme Court has observed that lucrative promises by political parties may push states towards imminent bankruptcy and has referred the matter to a three-judge Bench.
In its 2013 judgment in the Subramanian Balaji vs Tamil Nadu case, however, the SC held that the distribution of free colour television sets by the DMK government after winning the Tamil Nadu Assembly elections could not be termed a “corrupt practice” under the Representation of the People Act. — IANS
