Election Commission Of Indias Position On Political Freebies

Nov. 25, 2025, 10:39 a.m.

Introduction

The Election Commission of India (EC) has been at the center of a significant debate regarding its role in regulating political freebies promised by political parties during elections. This article examines the EC's stance on this matter, the legal challenges it has faced, and the broader political discourse surrounding the issue. The discussion focuses on whether the EC has the jurisdiction to regulate political parties' promises of free goods, services, or cash to voters, and how this intersects with democratic principles and electoral fairness.

Election Commission's Proposed Changes

In October 2022, the Election Commission proposed amendments to the model code of conduct that would require political parties to provide authentic information to voters about the financial viability of their poll promises. This proposal came amid the ongoing freebies versus welfare measures debate that had triggered considerable political controversy.

The Commission sent a letter to all recognized national and state parties requesting their views on these proposals, with a deadline for responses set for October 19. The initiative represented a significant shift in the EC's approach to handling political freebies, which had previously been considered outside its regulatory purview.

This proposal followed the EC's earlier decision to decline participation in a committee examining the issue of freebies as proposed by the Supreme Court. The Commission had previously stated in an affidavit that it could not regulate policy decisions of political parties and that such regulation would constitute an overreach of its powers.

Congress Response to EC Proposal

The Congress party strongly opposed the EC's proposal, asserting that the Election Commission does not have jurisdiction to regulate issues such as freebies. In a formal communication to the EC, Congress general secretary Jairam Ramesh emphasized that such issues are part of the dialectics of a vibrant democratic system and depend on the wisdom, discernment, and analysis of the electorate.

Congress argued that neither the Election Commission, nor the government, nor the courts have the authority to regulate or adjudicate matters related to poll promises or campaign assurances. The party maintained that these decisions should be left to the electorate, which can exercise its power through electoral punishment or acceptance both before and after elections.

The Congress position reflects a broader concern among opposition parties that the EC's proposal represents an overreach motivated by political considerations rather than constitutional mandate.

Supreme Court Intervention

The Supreme Court has played a crucial role in the freebies debate, issuing notices to both the Central government and the Election Commission on multiple occasions regarding the practice of political parties promising freebies during elections.

In one case, a bench headed by Chief Justice N.V. Raman and comprising Justices A.S. Bopanna and Hima Kohli issued notice to the Centre and the EC on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) against the promise or distribution of irrational freebies from public funds before polls. The bench noted that such practices "shake the roots of a free and fair election" and "vitiates the purity of the election process."

The Chief Justice acknowledged the seriousness of the issue while noting the court's limited role, stating "We can't legislate. Yes, it is a serious issue..." The court pointed out that the freebie budget sometimes exceeds regular budgets and can create an uneven playing field in elections.

The Supreme Court has previously held that freebies offered by political parties in their manifestos would not come under "corrupt practices" and "electoral offences" under the Representation of the People Act. This legal precedent has shaped the debate about the appropriate regulatory framework for political freebies.

Legal Arguments Against Freebies

Petitioners against political freebies have presented several arguments before the courts. One petition, filed by Bengaluru resident Shashank J Sreedhara through advocate Srinivasan, sought directions to restrain political parties from making promises of freebies during the pre-election period. The petition argued that "the unregulated promise of freebies imposes a significant and unaccounted financial burden on the public exchequer."

The Solicitor General Tushar Mehta supported a PIL filed by BJP leader and Supreme Court Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay against freebies as pre-election promises. The PIL highlighted that such promises are made without assessment of their financial implications on the state and represent attempts to attract votes rather than responsible electioneering. This, according to the petition, adversely affects free and fair elections and creates an uneven playing field between political parties.

Political Reactions to the Freebies Debate

The debate over political freebies has drawn strong reactions across the political spectrum. Prime Minister Narendra Modi characterized the "freebie culture" or "Revdi culture" as dangerous for the country's development, a statement that significantly intensified the debate.

The Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPI-M) strongly criticized the EC's proposal as an "unwarranted move." The party questioned the EC's change of position, noting that it had previously stated in an affidavit that it could not regulate policy decisions of political parties. The CPI(M) asked, "Is this due to pressure being exercised by the executive?"

Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal made a critical observation about the Election Commission's proposal, suggesting that perhaps the poll watchdog itself needs a model code of conduct. This remark reflected the broader skepticism among opposition parties about the EC's sudden interest in regulating political promises.

AAP's Position and the Freebie Culture

The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) has been particularly associated with the freebie culture in Indian politics. The party has thrived on offering what it considers welfare measures to voters, particularly in states like Delhi, Punjab, and in potential electoral battlegrounds such as Gujarat and Himachal Pradesh.

AAP's approach to freebies differs from that of other parties, framing many of its promises as essential welfare measures rather than political freebies. The party has argued that it is fulfilling its responsibility to implement public welfare schemes that benefit citizens.

This distinction between freebies and welfare measures has been central to the political debate, with different parties adopting fundamentally different positions based on their ideological orientations and political strategies.

Constitutional Jurisdiction Concerns

A significant aspect of the debate concerns the constitutional jurisdiction of the Election Commission. Critics of the EC's proposal have argued that regulating political freebies does not fall within the Commission's constitutional remit.

The EC itself has acknowledged that it lacks the expertise or machinery to judge poll promises or their implications. This assessment suggests that even if the Commission had the authority to regulate political freebies, it might not possess the necessary capacity to do so effectively.

The question of jurisdiction extends to the courts as well. Some legal scholars have argued that there is no apparent violation of the Constitution or any law when parties make promises of freebies, suggesting that the judiciary should not intervene in such matters.

Democratic Principles and Voter Intelligence

A recurring theme in the debate is the assumption about voter intelligence and capacity. Opponents of regulating political freebies have argued that it is wrong to assume voters are a simple and credulous lot who would be easily swayed by tall promises.

This perspective views such assumptions as elitist arguments that question the very basis of democracy. The implicit argument is that voters are capable of judging issues, people, and parties independently, and will make informed decisions at the ballot box.

This democratic principle suggests that the marketplace of ideas, rather than regulatory intervention, should determine the viability and wisdom of political promises, including those related to freebies.

International Context

The debate over political freebies in India has parallels in other democratic systems. Some countries have established frameworks for evaluating the financial implications of political promises, while others have left such matters to the political process and voter judgment.

In developed countries, weekly payments to the poor and elderly are sometimes implemented as standard welfare policies rather than election-specific promises. This distinction between permanent welfare programs and temporary pre-election freebies represents an important nuance in the international discourse on political freebies.

The international experience suggests that different democracies have adopted varying approaches to balancing political promises with fiscal responsibility, reflecting their unique political cultures and institutional frameworks.

EC's Previous Position

The Election Commission's current proposal represents a notable shift from its previous position. In an affidavit submitted to the Supreme Court in April, the Commission had clearly stated that it could not regulate policy decisions of political parties and that doing so would be an overreach of its powers.

This earlier position was consistent with the understanding that political parties have the autonomy to formulate their policies and promises, subject to electoral judgment rather than bureaucratic oversight.

The change in stance has led to speculation about the factors influencing the EC's new approach, with opposition parties suggesting possible pressure from the executive branch.

Political Freebies versus Welfare Measures

A central distinction in the debate is between political freebies and welfare measures. Proponents of many so-called "freebies" argue that they are actually essential welfare programs that fulfill the state's responsibility to citizens.

This distinction has significant implications for the regulatory debate. If certain programs are recognized as legitimate welfare measures rather than mere political freebies, they might fall outside the scope of proposed regulations.

The difficulty lies in drawing this distinction objectively, as what one party views as essential welfare, another might characterize as irresponsible populism.

Economic Impact Considerations

Critics of political freebies have emphasized their potential economic impact, arguing that unregulated promises can impose significant financial burdens on state exchequers. This concern has been particularly pronounced in states facing fiscal constraints.

The argument suggests that political parties should be required to demonstrate the financial viability of their promises before making them, to prevent irresponsible fiscal management and potential economic instability.

However, proponents of welfare measures counter that many beneficial programs require significant investment and that short-term fiscal concerns should not override long-term social welfare objectives.

Level Playing Field Concerns

The Supreme Court has noted that freebies can create an uneven playing field in elections, particularly when some parties have greater capacity to make expensive promises than others. This concern about electoral fairness has been a significant factor in the judicial consideration of the issue.

The argument suggests that unregulated freebies might advantage wealthier parties or those with access to greater resources, potentially distorting the democratic process.

This concern has led to proposals for regulatory frameworks that would require transparency about the financial implications of political promises, ensuring that all parties compete on a more equal footing.

Conclusion

The debate over political freebies in India reflects broader tensions between democratic principles, fiscal responsibility, and electoral fairness. The Election Commission's proposal to require financial information about poll promises represents an attempt to address these tensions, though it has faced significant resistance from political parties and questions about its jurisdiction and effectiveness.

The Supreme Court's intervention has highlighted the complexity of the issue, acknowledging its seriousness while recognizing the limits of judicial power in matters of political promise-making. The political reactions to both the EC's proposal and the court's intervention demonstrate the deeply polarized nature of the debate, with different parties adopting fundamentally different positions based on their ideological orientations and political strategies.

As India's democracy continues to evolve, the regulation of political freebies will likely remain a contested issue, reflecting ongoing debates about the appropriate balance between popular will, institutional oversight, and economic prudence in a democratic society.