Supreme Court to examine electoral promises’ financial impact through Public Interest Litigations (PILs), as election campaigns escalate with pledges of benefits. From historic free schooling to modern freebies like electricity, political parties’ commitments face legal examination.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: As the final phase of election campaigning winds down, characterized by an increase in pledges of complimentary benefits and monetary rewards, the Supreme Court is set to examine the financial implications of these electoral commitments via a set of Public Interest Litigations (PILs). Stemming from years of changing electoral strategies—ranging from providing free schooling and meals in the 1950s to contemporary assurances of complimentary electricity and transportation—political factions have consistently amplified their offerings to garner support.
The apex court, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, had previously engaged in extensive deliberations on a series of PILs, spearheaded by advocate Ashwini Upadhya, during sessions held on November 22-23 of the preceding year. Despite fervent pleas from senior advocate Vijay Hansaria for expedited proceedings, the cases remained inconclusive, awaiting further adjudication.
Sources within the SC registry indicate that the pending matter is poised for a prompt listing following the conclusion of the court’s summer recess, slated to end on July 8. These PILs were originally referred to a three-judge bench on August 26, 2022, by a panel led by then Chief Justice NV Ramana. The decision to escalate the issue came as a realization that addressing the relief sought in these petitions necessitates a reevaluation of the precedent set forth in the two-judge bench ruling of the 2013 Subramaniam Balaji case.
In the Balaji judgment, the court grappled with the contention that competitive distribution of freebies by parties such as the DMK and AIADMK constituted a form of voter bribery and thus constituted a corrupt practice under the Representation of People Act. Amidst this legal backdrop, the impending Supreme Court session holds significant implications for India’s electoral landscape and the broader discourse on political ethics and accountability.
ALSO READ: CJI & Elections | SC Agrees to Hear PIL Against Political Parties Promising Freebies During Polls
“Though deeply entrenched in electoral practices, the tradition of providing freebies necessitates a critical examination of its implications on governance and fiscal accountability.”
– remarked legal expert Dr. Ritu Sharma, emphasizing the need for a balanced perspective in evaluating electoral practices.
“While we anticipate the Supreme Court’s considerations, there’s an increasing acknowledgment of the necessity to achieve a nuanced equilibrium between electoral competition and principled governance.”
– echoed political analyst Arjun Khanna.
The Supreme Court (SC) reiterated its stance on freebies, asserting the delicate balance between populism and fiscal prudence. Quoting from the judgment, the SC emphasized-
“It is well established that the notion of livelihood extends beyond mere sustenance such as food, clothing, and shelter. Nowadays, it also encompasses essential aspects like basic healthcare, primary education, transportation, and more.”
Contrary to the allure of freebies, the SC, while addressing PILs led by Upadhyay on August 26, 2022, voiced concerns over their adverse fiscal implications.
“Freebies have the potential to lead to a scenario where the State Government struggles to furnish essential services due to financial constraints, thereby increasing the risk of imminent bankruptcy.”
-remarked the court.
It cautioned against the misuse of taxpayers’ money for political gain, stressing the detrimental impact on public welfare.
However, the SC clarified that not all electoral promises should be equated with freebies. It distinguished between welfare schemes aimed at public good, which align with the Directive Principles of state policy, and populist measures designed solely for political expediency.
The Election Commission (EC), initially hesitant to intervene, later filed an affidavit proposing stringent measures to regulate the dissemination of freebies. The EC suggested that parties disclose data on estimated beneficiaries, projected expenditure, and means of funding such promises. This move, if implemented, would compel political parties to justify their populist pledges and assess their fiscal sustainability.
While the EC’s proposal aims to enhance transparency and accountability in electoral promises, political parties have urged the court to refrain from meddling in electoral affairs. They argue that parties are cognizant of the fiscal implications and exercise prudence in their commitments.
If endorsed by the SC, the EC’s proposal would necessitate political parties to engage economists to evaluate the fiscal impact of their promises. This would entail a thorough analysis of the financing mechanisms, debt servicing implications, and potential resort to additional borrowings upon assuming power.