The Supreme Court on Wednesday began hearing petitions seeking a judicial declaration that irrational freebies offered by political parties to lure voters during election time should be considered a “corrupt practice”.
In October, a Bench headed by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud had sought responses from the States of Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan on a plea that public funds are being misused to offer outlandish freebies ahead of Assembly elections.
The court has made its anxiety plain about parties, which form the government riding the wave created by their pre-election promises of “free gifts”, bleeding the State finances dry by actually trying to fulfil their “wild” promises of largesse using public money.
Amicus curiae, senior advocate Vijay Hansaria, submitted that the court has to decide whether “giving freebies would be a corrupt practice under Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and become a ground for moving court in an election petition”.
Senior advocate Arvind Datar, for petitioners, said political parties have been linking freebies to the Directive Principles of State Policy in the Constitution, which obliges the State to aim for certain ideals in social order and governance.
Mr. Datar also submitted that the court should also consider an argument raised by parties that freebies ought to be considered as “expenditure defrayable by the Union or a State out of its revenues” under Article 282 of the Constitution.
“There is a U.S. Supreme Court judgment which says that public funds cannot be used to create private assets,” he said.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan said illegitimate or discriminatory freebies were not the same as legitimate freebies given to the public for a “welfare cause”.
“Doing away with the debts of wilful defaulters is an illegitimate freebie. Giving benefits to a particular religious community would classify as a discriminatory freebie,” he explained.
The hearing signified a shifting of stand by the court from its 2013 judgment in the S. Subramaniam Balaji versus Tamil Nadu case. In this judgment, a Division Bench of the Supreme Court had held that making promises in election manifestos do not amount to a ‘corrupt practice’ under Section 123 of the Representation of People Act.
