The Debate On Political Freebies In India Economic Impact And Constitutional Concerns

Nov. 30, 2025, 11:46 a.m.

Tags: irrational

The issue of "irrational freebies" promised by political parties during elections has emerged as a significant constitutional and economic concern in India. The Supreme Court of India has recently taken up multiple petitions examining whether such promises violate electoral principles and constitutional provisions, while simultaneously debating their economic implications on state finances and governance.

Supreme Court's Stance on Freebies

The Supreme Court of India has characterized the promise of irrational freebies before elections as a "serious issue" that requires legal intervention. During hearings, the Court expressed skepticism about whether Parliament would effectively debate this issue, noting that "no political party would like to take away freebies" once promised to voters.

The Court recommended constituting an expert body with persons who could effectively scrutinize the problem and find solutions. The Chief Justice of India, NV Ramana, highlighted the political difficulty of addressing freebies, questioning which political party would agree to debate a practice that benefits voters directly.

The Solicitor General representing the Central government supported doing away with the practice, emphasizing that freebies were paving the way to an "economic disaster" and distorting the informed decision-making of voters. The government representative suggested that the Election Commission should reconsider its approach to regulating such promises.

Constitutional Challenges

A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, a Delhi BJP leader and advocate, demanded that irrational freebies using public funds be declared unconstitutional. The petition argued that such promises violate multiple articles of the Indian Constitution:

Article 14 (Right to Equality)
Article 162 (Disposal of revenues)
Article 266(3) (Consolidated Funds of States)
Article 282 (Expenditure exceeding revenues)

The petitioner contended that these promises amount to bribery and undue influence under Section 171B and Section 171C of the Indian Penal Code. The PIL sought a direction to seize the election symbol and de-register any political party that promises or distributes irrational freebies from public funds before elections.

The Supreme Court issued notice on the plea and sought responses from the central government and Election Commission within four weeks, acknowledging the seriousness of the issue.

Election Commission's Position

The Election Commission found itself in a difficult position regarding regulation of freebies. While the Court had previously asked the Election Commission to frame guidelines to check the practice in consultation with political parties, the Commission's counsel indicated that its hands were "tied by a judgment of the apex court on freebies."

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal argued that the Election Commission should not be involved in the matter, stating that the issue is political and economic in nature. He emphasized that "the Parliament will have to debate" such matters, suggesting that regulatory authority should rest with the legislative branch rather than the electoral body.

Economic Concerns

Economic experts and bureaucrats have warned about the deleterious effects of announcements of freebies by various state governments, particularly before elections. These concerns include:

Resource Allocation: Freebies consume funds that could be used for development projects in rural and backward areas.
Infrastructure Development: States spend less on physical infrastructure (such as power and roads) and social infrastructure (such as education and health) when allocating resources to freebies.
Economic Growth: Reduced spending on infrastructure that can potentially improve growth and generate jobs.
Fiscal Health: Freebies particularly harm indebted states that do not have sufficient funds for welfare schemes or development work.

One analysis noted that while freebies may appear to benefit poor and economically weaker sections, this argument is not entirely justified because "irrational freebies eat away the development budget of the indebted States that do not have sufficient funds for welfare schemes as also for undertaking development work in rural and backward areas."

Social Impact Debate

The Supreme Court has expressed concerns about the social impact of freebie culture, suggesting that people are becoming less willing to work when receiving benefits without labor. A Bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih noted:

"Unfortunately, because of these freebies which, just on the anvil of election — 'Ladki Bahin' and some other schemes — people are not willing to work. They are getting free rations, amounts without doing any work!"

However, this perspective has been challenged by other political voices. The DMK, for instance, argued that welfare schemes providing free services with an intent to minimize income inequalities cannot be construed as freebies. These parties distinguish between genuine welfare measures and politically motivated promises made solely to garner votes.

The "Revdi Culture" Debate

Prime Minister Narendra Modi has criticized what he termed the "revdi culture," suggesting that such practices are dangerous to youth and prospects of development in the country. This term has entered the political lexicon to describe the distribution of freebies for electoral gain.

The PIL admitted by the Supreme Court has been criticized for its "simplistic and unrefined arguments" and for exhibiting "classist tendencies." For instance, the petition claimed that people working under MNREGA (a rural employment scheme) only "chit-chat and play mobile games without doing the work," suggesting that freebies "create/inculcate laziness among people, shattering the work force of the state."

Potential Regulatory Approaches

Several approaches to regulating irrational freebies have been proposed:

Expert Body: The Supreme Court suggested constituting an expert body to scrutinize the problem and find solutions.
Election Commission Oversight: Some have called for the Election Commission to regulate freebies, though the Commission has expressed limitations in its authority.
Legislative Debate: Others have emphasized that Parliament should debate and address the issue, though skepticism exists about whether political parties would agree to limit their own ability to promise benefits.
Pre-approval Mechanism: One proposal suggested that political parties should not be allowed to announce freebies before elections without prior consent of the Election Commission and without getting such decisions passed in their respective State Assemblies.

Conclusion

The debate on irrational freebies in India reflects a tension between democratic promises of benefits to citizens and the need for fiscal responsibility and good governance. The Supreme Court's involvement indicates the seriousness with which the judiciary views this issue, while the political and economic arguments on both sides highlight the complexity of balancing immediate voter benefits with long-term development objectives.

As the Court examines the constitutional validity of such promises, the broader question remains about how to ensure that electoral competition does not lead to unsustainable fiscal policies that ultimately harm the very populations they aim to benefit.