Plea to ban freebies by political parties to be heard by a three-judge Bench: SC

The Supreme Court on Thursday said that the issue of political parties promising freebies in their election manifestos and during election campaigns is of “paramount importance” and raises serious questions of public interest, warranting consideration by a three-judge Bench.

The observation was made when the issue was mentioned before a Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi by BJP leader and advocate petitioner Ashwini Upadhyay, who has sought a ban on the announcement of freebies in election manifestos and during campaigning.

Advertisement

Indicating that the matter would be placed before a larger Bench, the Chief Justice said, “It is of paramount importance and is in public interest… this has to be heard by three-judges’ bench.” The CJI asked the petitioner to wait for the matter to be taken up later this month, adding, “Wait for March.”

Upadhyay urged the Court to hear the case urgently, pointing out that five State Assembly elections are scheduled in the coming months. He submitted that political parties were increasingly making promises to influence voters, which, according to him, amounted to corrupt practices.

“Five assembly elections are coming. Only the sun and moon are left to promise. These are corrupt practices,” the petitioner told the Court.

The public interest litigation filed by Upadhyay seeks directions to the central government and the Election Commission of India to issue directives regulating election manifestos and to ensure accountability for promises involving public expenditure. The plea also flags concerns about the long-term economic consequences of such promises and their impact on the fairness of the electoral process.

Political parties, by and large, have opposed the plea, some terming it as politically motivated, arguing that welfare schemes and subsidies are integral to governance and aimed at supporting vulnerable sections of society.

The Supreme Court has, in earlier hearings, acknowledged the complexity of the issue, noting that it raises difficult questions about the limits of judicial intervention in electoral and policy matters. The Court has also indicated that its 2013 ruling in Subramaniam Balaji v. Government of Tamil Nadu—which held that promises of freebies in election manifestos do not constitute corrupt practices under the Representation of the People Act—may require reconsideration.

Backgrounder

On August 26, 2022, the Supreme Court had referred the issue of freebies promised by political parties to a three-judge Bench, observing that the subject required extensive debate, including a relook at the 2013 Subramaniam Balaji judgment. That (2013) ruling had held that such promises were not corrupt practices under Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act and could fall within the ambit of the Directive Principles of State Policy.

The court had noted that the matter involved complex questions, including “what is the scope of judicial intervention” and whether constituting an expert body to examine the issue would serve any purpose.

During earlier hearings in August 2022, the Court had remarked that while promising freebies to lure voters is a concern, regulating the practice poses difficulties since all political parties, without exception, engage in it. The Court had also mooted the idea of involving an expert body with representatives from the Finance Commission, RBI and NITI Aayog to study the economic impact of such promises.

The plea to curb freebies has been opposed by parties including the Aam Aadmi Party, DMK and Congress, which have argued that the term “freebie” itself lacks a clear definition and that welfare measures cannot be equated with corrupt practices.