THE POLITICS OF ‘FREEBIES’ AND JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT

THE CONTEXT: The debate over freebies versus welfare has gained renewed attention following the 2025 Delhi Assembly Elections, despite earlier criticism of “revdi culture” by PM Modi. This electoral battle highlighted a significant shift from traditional caste-based mobilization to welfare-centric politics, particularly in urban centers like Delhi. The discourse now centers on the critical distinction between populist freebies and genuine welfare measures, while raising concerns about fiscal sustainability, as Delhi’s revenue surplus is projected to decline from ₹14,457 crore in 2022-23 to ₹3,231 crore in 2024-25.

DEFINITION OF FREEBIES AND WELFARE:

ARGUMENTS AGAINST FREEBIES – FISCAL AND ECONOMIC CONCERNS:

ARGUMENTS FOR WELFARE SCHEMES – DEVELOPMENT OUTCOMES

JUDICIAL PERSPECTIVES ON FREEBIES AND WELFARE:

• • Subramaniam Balaji v. State of Tamil Nadu (2013): The Supreme Court ruled that distribution of freebies falls within the ambit of legislative policy and is beyond judicial scrutiny, provided it aligns with public purpose under Article 282. The Court emphasized that welfare schemes promoting social justice are consistent with DPSPs, particularly Article 39(b) and (c), which advocate equitable distribution of resources.
  • However, it acknowledged that such practices could influence voters and impact free and fair elections but refrained from labeling them as “corrupt practices” under the Representation of People Act, 1951.
  • PIL on Freebies (2022): The Supreme Court entertained a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the practice of offering irrational freebies during elections. The Court observed that the issue is a “serious concern” but maintained judicial restraint, stating that regulating freebies falls under the legislative domain.
  • It proposed forming an expert panel to define the scope of permissible welfare measures and sought stakeholder recommendations.
  • Election Commission’s Stand (2022): The Election Commission of India (ECI) clarified that regulating freebies is outside its mandate and insisted that voters must assess their economic viability.
  • It mandated political parties to provide a rationale for their promises in election manifestos to ensure transparency.

CONSTITUTIONAL DIMENSIONS:

• • Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs): Articles 38, 39, and 41 guide the state to promote welfare by ensuring equal opportunities, reducing inequalities, and providing public assistance for vulnerable groups. Welfare schemes like the Mid-day Meal Program, Ayushman Bharat, and MGNREGA align with these principles by addressing systemic inequalities.
  • Articles Governing Public Expenditure: Article 282 allows governments to utilize public funds for “public purposes,” but this provision lacks clear guidelines on distinguishing welfare from freebies. Articles 266(3) and 162 prohibit misappropriation of funds but require stricter enforcement mechanisms.

GLOBAL COMPARISON:

THE WAY FORWARD:

• • Legislative Reforms: Define boundaries between irrational freebies and merit-based welfare. Enact a Freebies Regulation Act to clearly distinguish between “irrational freebies” (short-term electoral promises) and “welfare measures” (long-term developmental impact). Incorporate fiscal responsibility clauses to cap subsidy expenditures at a fixed percentage of the Gross State Domestic Product (GSDP). Tamil Nadu’s freebie culture has led to unsustainable fiscal deficits; such legislation could prevent similar cases nationwide.
    • Strengthen Fiscal Responsibility Laws: Amend the Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management (FRBM) Act to include state-level provisions for rationalizing subsidies.It have been recommended by the 15th Finance Commission that states should limit debt-to-GSDP ratio to 20% (current of 31.2%, 2023).
  • Institutional Mechanisms: Evaluate welfare schemes through evidence-based policymaking. Conduct cost-benefit analyses of welfare proposals using NITI Aayog’s Development Monitoring and Evaluation Office (DMEO) framework. Use parameters like relevance, efficiency, sustainability, and equity (REESIE) for evaluation. NITI Aayog’s evaluation of Centrally Sponsored Schemes (2020) helped optimize ₹3 lakh crore in development expenditure.
    • Independent Fiscal Council: Proposed by the Economic Survey 2017-18, this council would assess fiscal implications of welfare schemes before implementation.
  • Judicial Guidelines: Prevent misuse of public funds while respecting legislative autonomy. The Supreme Court can issue guidelines to ensure public funds are used for developmental purposes aligned with Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs). In S. Subramaniam Balaji v. State of Tamil Nadu (2013), SC held that welfare schemes must align with Articles 39(b) and (c).
  • Mandatory Financial Disclosure for Election Promises: Following the SC’s notice in November 2022, political parties should disclose the financial viability of their promises in manifestos. This aligns with the Election Commission’s recommendation for transparency in electoral pledges.
  • Voter Awareness Campaigns: Empower voters to make informed decisions on electoral promises. Collaborate with civil society organizations to educate voters about the economic impact of irrational freebies on fiscal health and tax burdens. The Election Commission’s Systematic Voters’ Education and Electoral Participation (SVEEP) initiative can be expanded to include financial literacy modules.
  • Technology-Driven Governance: Improve efficiency and reduce leakages in welfare delivery mechanisms. Expand Direct Benefit Transfers (DBT) to ensure targeted delivery of subsidies while reducing administrative costs.
    • Blockchain Technology for Transparency: Implement blockchain-based systems to track fund allocation and utilization in welfare schemes. Andhra Pradesh’s blockchain-enabled Public Distribution System improved transparency in food grain distribution.

THE CONCLUSION:

A balanced approach to freebies and welfare, combining fiscal responsibility with social justice, is key to sustainable development. Transforming short-term populism into long-term growth requires accountability, evidence-based policies, and voter awareness.

UPSC PAST YEAR QUESTION:

Q. Development and welfare schemes for the vulnerable, by its nature, are discriminatory in approach. Do you agree? Give reasons for your answer. 2023

MAINS PRACTICE QUESTION:

Q. The rising trend of electoral freebies in India poses significant challenges to fiscal sustainability, electoral ethics, and governance. Critically evaluate

SOURCE:

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/the-politics-of-freebies-and-judicial-oversight/article69178825.ece