A bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant issued notice to the Centre and other parties while hearing a plea related to the DMK government’s proposal to provide free electricity. During the proceedings, the court expressed unease over what it described as the “freebies culture” increasingly adopted by political parties and state governments.
The bench underscored that many states across the country are already running revenue deficits, yet continue to announce expansive welfare schemes without clearly addressing their fiscal implications. “The economic development of the nation will be hampered with this kind of largesse distribution,” the Chief Justice observed orally, questioning whether such benefits should be extended uniformly without regard to economic need.
Highlighting concerns over universal subsidies, the Chief Justice remarked that even affluent individuals and large landowners in some states avail free electricity, keeping lights and machinery running at no personal cost. “If you want to have a facility, you pay for it. But this money which the state says it will pay now—who will pay for it? This is the tax money,” he noted, emphasizing the burden ultimately borne by taxpayers.
The court also referred to instances where welfare schemes were announced shortly before elections, suggesting that the timing of such measures raises broader policy and governance questions. Clarifying that the issue is not limited to Tamil Nadu, the bench stated that the concern applies to all states across the country.
“We are not on Tamil Nadu context only. We are on the fact that why are schemes being announced just before elections. All political parties, sociologists need to revisit ideology. How long will this continue?” the Chief Justice said.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi, who was also part of the bench, stressed the need for structured financial planning. He suggested that states should present welfare expenditures transparently in their budgets, with clear justifications and defined outlays. “It is planned expenditure. Why don’t you make Budget proposals and give justification that this is my outlay on unemployment of people,” he added.
The observations from the apex court signal a broader judicial concern over fiscal discipline, transparency, and the long-term sustainability of populist welfare measures. While reiterating that it is the state’s duty to provide for citizens, the bench indicated that indiscriminate distribution of subsidies without financial accountability may warrant closer scrutiny.
The matter is expected to be taken up further after responses are filed by the concerned parties.
