The Supreme Court of India raised concerns over the growing trend of political parties announcing “freebies” ahead of elections, questioning whether such policies are fostering a culture of dependency rather than empowering citizens to contribute to national development. A bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih observed that instead of integrating people into the mainstream economy, these handouts might be discouraging individuals from actively participating in the workforce.
NEW DELHI : The Supreme Court of India raised concerns over the growing trend of political parties announcing “freebies” ahead of elections, questioning whether such policies are fostering a culture of dependency rather than empowering citizens to contribute to national development.
A bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih observed that instead of integrating people into the mainstream economy, these handouts might be discouraging individuals from actively participating in the workforce.
Impact of Freebies on Workforce Participation
During the hearing of a case concerning the right to shelter for urban homeless populations, the bench critically examined the practice of distributing free benefits just before elections.
Justice Gavai remarked,
“Rather than promoting them to be a part of the mainstream of society by contributing to the development of the nation, are we not creating a class of parasites?”
He further noted that certain welfare schemes, such as “Ladki Bahin” and others introduced close to elections, might be deterring individuals from seeking employment.
Expanding on this concern, Justice Gavai pointed to his own experiences in Maharashtra, stating that the
“Prevalence of election-driven welfare measures had led to a noticeable decline in the availability of agricultural laborers“
He suggested that such short-term incentives, though well-intended, might have unintended consequences on the labor market.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Criticizes Freebies Practice, Says It Leads to Lack of Willingness to Work
Balancing Welfare with Economic Inclusion
Despite the Court’s reservations about excessive reliance on state-sponsored benefits, it acknowledged the need for a well-balanced approach to social welfare. The bench stressed that
“Addressing homelessness and poverty required serious attention but should be structured in a way that encourages self-sufficiency rather than dependency.”
The Attorney General of India, R. Venkataramani, informed the Court that
The central government was in the process of finalizing a comprehensive Urban Poverty Alleviation Mission, which would address various aspects of homelessness, including shelter provisions.
The Court directed him to ascertain a timeframe for implementing this mission and sought details regarding the scheme’s scope.
Additionally, the Court instructed the
Central government to continue the National Urban Livelihoods Mission until the new policy was operational.
It also asked the Centre to gather and present state-wise data on the status of homelessness, available shelters, and accommodation capacities.
ALSO READ: Election Freebies Distribution in India: Impact on Democracy and Legal Perspectives
Debate on Government Priorities and Social Welfare
During the proceedings, one of the petitioners raised concerns about the inadequate prioritization of homelessness, alleging that authorities displayed greater compassion towards the wealthy than towards the underprivileged. However, this assertion drew a sharp response from the bench.
Justice Gavai cautioned against turning courtroom discussions into political debates, stating,
“Don’t make a speech as if this is Ramlila Maidan. Don’t make unnecessary allegations. This courtroom is not a platform for political battles.”
The Court also rejected the notion that the government was indifferent to the plight of the poor, emphasizing that policy decisions should be viewed objectively rather than through a lens of political rhetoric.
Assessing the Reality of Urban Homelessness in India
Senior advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing one of the petitioners, highlighted the mismatch between the available shelter capacity and the actual number of homeless individuals in urban areas. He presented figures indicating that as of December 4, 2024, a total of 2,557 shelters had been sanctioned across states and union territories, with 1,995 operational shelters capable of housing 1.16 lakh individuals.
However, Bhushan pointed out that this was grossly inadequate, citing a survey that estimated nearly 3 lakh urban homeless individuals in Delhi alone. He also referenced data from the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (DUSIB), which revealed that while 197 shelters were operational in the capital with a total capacity of 17,000 individuals, the actual maximum occupancy over the past four years had been only around 5,500 people.
To ensure accuracy, the Supreme Court directed the Attorney General to verify these statistics with the relevant ministry and submit an updated status report.
Future Course of Action
The Court scheduled the matter for further hearing in six weeks, during which it expects the government to provide a detailed response regarding the proposed Urban Poverty Alleviation Mission and clarify interim measures to support the homeless population.
This case highlights a crucial debate on the role of state welfare schemes in economic inclusion. While free benefits can provide immediate relief to vulnerable sections of society, an over-reliance on such measures could potentially discourage workforce participation. The Supreme Court’s observations bring attention to the need for policy frameworks that strike a balance between social welfare and economic sustainability, ensuring that assistance programs empower citizens rather than foster long-term dependency.
READ PIL HERE:
READ LATEST ORDER HERE:
Difference Between Freebies and Welfare Policies
| Freebies | Welfare Policies |
|---|---|
| Defined by the RBI in its 2022 report as “public welfare measures provided free of charge.” | Comprehensive programs aimed at improving the quality of life and ensuring resource accessibility for target populations. |
| Primarily offer short-term relief. | Focus on long-term societal development and economic stability. |
| Include items such as free laptops, TVs, bicycles, electricity, and water, often used as electoral incentives. | Aligned with Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs), promoting social justice and equity. |
| Often criticized for fostering dependency rather than sustainable growth. | Designed to create lasting positive impacts on human development. |
| Examples: Free electricity, direct cash transfers before elections. | Examples: Public Distribution System (PDS), MGNREGA, Mid-Day Meal (MDM) programs. |
Positive Aspects of Freebies
- Support for Marginalized Communities: In states with high poverty rates, freebies provide immediate relief to economically weaker sections, helping uplift them.
- Foundation for Welfare Programs: Many welfare schemes originated from freebies. For example:
- Tamil Nadu’s Mid-Day Meal Scheme (1956) later expanded nationally.
- Andhra Pradesh’s Rs. 2/kg rice scheme (by NT Rama Rao) inspired the National Food Security Program.
- Telangana’s Rythu Bandhu and Odisha’s KALIA schemes influenced the PM-KISAN initiative.
- Boost to Industries: Providing sewing machines, bicycles, or textiles (as seen in Tamil Nadu and Bihar) stimulates industrial production and local economies.
- Social Welfare Enhancement: Freebies like subsidized food, healthcare, and education improve living standards, particularly for vulnerable communities.
- Encouraging Workforce Participation: Programs like free bus passes for women promote their entry into the workforce, contributing to economic growth and women’s empowerment.
- Educational Access and Skill Development:
- Government-distributed laptops (e.g., in Uttar Pradesh) enhance digital literacy and productivity.
- NITI Aayog reported that distributing bicycles in Bihar and West Bengal reduced school dropout rates and improved attendance.
- Political Engagement and Public Trust:
- Freebies can increase voter trust by demonstrating government responsiveness.
- A Centre for Policy Research study found that in states like Uttar Pradesh and Tamil Nadu, freebies improved governance perception, enhanced political engagement, and boosted voter turnout.
Negative Aspects of Freebies
- Financial Burden:
- Freebie expenditures range from 0.1% to 2.7% of GSDP across states.
- States like Andhra Pradesh and Punjab allocate over 10% of revenue to subsidies, straining budgets.
- Threat to Free and Fair Elections:
- Offering irrational freebies before elections can manipulate voter choices and distort the electoral process, making it an unethical practice similar to bribery.
- Misallocation of Resources:
- Excessive freebies divert funds from critical sectors like infrastructure, healthcare, and education, limiting long-term development.
- NITI Aayog criticized Uttar Pradesh’s laptop distribution for overshadowing urgent education system improvements.
- Encouraging Dependency:
- Over-reliance on free benefits discourages self-reliance, entrepreneurship, and workforce participation, hampering economic growth.
- Weakened Governance Accountability:
- Political parties may use freebies to cover up governance failures, diverting attention from systemic issues.
- Environmental Consequences:
- Free utilities like electricity and water subsidies encourage resource overuse, leading to sustainability concerns.
- Punjab’s free electricity for farmers has caused groundwater depletion and poor power infrastructure quality.
The Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in E.R. Kumar & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. brings critical judicial scrutiny to the rising trend of electoral freebies, questioning their long-term impact on governance, economic stability, and democratic integrity.
By highlighting concerns over financial sustainability, voter manipulation, and potential dependency, the case urges policymakers to establish clear distinctions between essential welfare schemes and populist handouts.
If the Supreme Court sets guidelines or directs regulatory measures, it could lead to greater fiscal accountability, responsible policymaking, and a shift towards long-term development-oriented welfare programs, ultimately redefining the role of government spending in India’s electoral landscape.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
