Indias Supreme Court Committee On Political Freebies Purpose Concerns And Implications

The Supreme Court of India has taken a significant step by forming an expert panel to examine the complex issue of political freebies - incentives and benefits offered by political parties to voters during election campaigns. This development comes amid growing concerns about the economic and democratic implications of such practices, with the court acknowledging that freebies have evolved from welfare measures to what some describe as an "art form" in electoral politics.

Background of the Supreme Court's Intervention

On August 3, the Supreme Court of India decided to establish an expert committee to study the impact of freebies announced by political parties during elections on the national economy. This decision came in response to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Ashwini Upadhyay, who sought directions to regulate the distribution of freebies by political parties. The matter was initially posted for August 11, with the court asking the Centre, Election Commission, senior advocate Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal, and the petitioners to submit their suggestions within seven days on the composition of this expert body.

The initiative reflects the judiciary's recognition that freebies have become a serious issue in Indian politics, potentially affecting both economic stability and democratic processes. As Chief Justice N.V. Ramana's bench noted, "Nobody says that this isn't the serious issue," highlighting the gravity with which the court views this matter.

Composition and Purpose of the Proposed Committee

The Supreme Court has recommended a committee comprising representatives from diverse stakeholders to ensure a comprehensive examination of the freebie culture. The proposed members include:

• Central Government representatives
• State Government representatives
• Opposition parties
• Niti Aayog
• Election Commission
• Finance Commission
• Reserve Bank of India (RBI)
• Beneficiaries of welfare schemes
• Those opposing freebies
• National Taxpayers Association

This diverse composition aims to facilitate a "holistic and comprehensive view of the matter," as stated in the court's order. The committee would be tasked with examining how freebies impact elections and the broader economy, though the specific scope and powers of such a committee remain to be fully defined.

The Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, proposed that the committee should include Secretary-level officials from both central and state governments, representatives of all political parties, and various expert bodies. He suggested that until legislative measures are implemented, the court might need to lay down interim guidelines regulating freebies.

Historical Context: Past Supreme Court Observations

This is not the first time India's highest court has grappled with the issue of political freebies. In 2013, during the Subramaniam Balaji case, the Supreme Court ruled that matters related to freebies fell within the domain of legislative policy and were beyond judicial scrutiny. The court emphasized that such expenditures could neither be deemed unlawful nor characterized as a "corrupt practice," particularly since they aimed to advance the Directive Principles of State Policy.

In 2021, the Supreme Court had proposed an expert panel including NITI Aayog, RBI, and political representatives to examine the issue, but no concrete action followed at that time. Then in 2022, the court again flagged concerns over political parties announcing unsustainable schemes without clarity on funding sources.

The current initiative represents a renewed judicial effort to address what has become an increasingly problematic aspect of Indian democracy - the practice of political parties offering increasingly extravagant freebies to win voter favor.

Concerns Raised by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has articulated several significant concerns regarding the proliferation of political freebies in India:

1. Encouraging Unemployment: The court has expressed concern that free ration and direct cash transfers may discourage people from seeking employment, thereby reducing the labor force participation rate.

2. Misallocation of Resources: States are accused of prioritizing freebies over essential services like salaries for judicial officers and critical public infrastructure development.

3. Fiscal Burden: In states like Punjab, excessive subsidies (constituting 16% of total revenue) are pushing economies toward bankruptcy, creating unsustainable fiscal positions.

4. Political Exploitation: The court has cautioned against using election-time incentives as a means to sway voters, terming it a potential violation of free and fair electoral processes.

These concerns highlight the judiciary's view that while some welfare initiatives may be well-intentioned, the current practice of political freebies has evolved into something more problematic - a tool for political manipulation rather than genuine social welfare.

Government's Position and Response

The Central government has approached the issue with a degree of ambivalence. On one hand, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta acknowledged that the freebies culture "has been elevated to the level of art" and that "elections are only fought on this ground." He expressed concern that if freebies are considered acceptable as a means of welfare, "it'll lead to a disaster."

Mehta also pointed out that freebies are often not part of official manifestos but are announced spontaneously during political rallies, making them difficult to regulate. He maintained that while welfare schemes are proposed by every government, "distributing things free cannot be the way."

However, the government has also shown willingness to address the issue constructively. When the Supreme Court queried why the Centre couldn't form its own committee and call for an all-party meeting, Mehta responded that the Centre would "help in every way" and could provide statistics and other relevant information.

Interestingly, the government has suggested that a retired judge of the apex court, like Justice R.M. Lodha, should head the committee examining freebie issues, indicating a preference for judicial oversight of this sensitive political matter.

Expert Perspectives on the Committee Approach

Legal experts have offered mixed assessments of the Supreme Court's decision to form a committee. Senior counsel Rajeev Dhavan expressed skepticism, questioning what effect the committee could have on freebies and how it would answer fundamental questions about their impact on elections.

Most senior law experts and advocates believe that the Supreme Court's decision to form a committee may result in what they describe as "burial by committee" - essentially delaying substantive action while creating the appearance of addressing the issue. As Supreme Court Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde commented, "There is only a committee that is being formed. No report has come yet. The issue of jurisdiction will arise only if the apex court decides to act on the recommendations of the committee. As of now, it seems like it will be a burial by committee."

This perspective suggests that while the committee formation represents a positive first step, meaningful reform of the freebie culture will require more decisive action, potentially including legislative measures or clearer judicial directives.

Arguments in Defense of Political Freebies

Despite the concerns raised by the Supreme Court and others, proponents of political freebies argue that they serve crucial social functions and should not be dismissed outright:

1. Poverty Alleviation and Social Protection: Free food distribution during the pandemic benefited 800 million people, ensuring basic sustenance during a crisis.

2. Improving Infrastructure and Living Standards: Free electricity, water, and sanitation have enhanced quality of life, as evidenced by multi-dimensional poverty index reports.

3. Addressing Socio-economic Inequalities: Schemes like free electricity for farmers in Punjab aim to rectify long-standing inequalities in rural areas.

4. Boosting Human Development: Free education, mid-day meals, and healthcare services enhance literacy, nutrition, and well-being, contributing to long-term economic progress.

5. Economic Stimulus: Free or subsidized public transport for women increases workforce participation and financial independence, while welfare schemes enhance consumer spending, indirectly stimulating economic growth.

6. Social Equity and Political Stability: By reducing income disparities, freebies can help prevent social unrest and ensure greater political stability.

These arguments suggest that while the practice of political freebies may have problematic aspects, some initiatives do serve genuine social welfare purposes that benefit vulnerable populations.

Social Media Misinformation and Clarifications

The Supreme Court's intervention has generated significant discussion on social media, with some claims requiring clarification. One widespread claim was that India is forming the largest organization of taxpayers in the world that would work as a watchdog, without whose approval no promise of free electricity, water, or distribution could be made.

However, this claim is factually incorrect. While the Supreme Court has recommended a committee with various stakeholders, it has not specified any powers or limitations for such a committee. There is no official indication that election freebies would require approval from this committee to be implemented. The court has merely suggested forming an advisory body to examine the issue, not a regulatory authority with veto power over political promises.

This misinformation highlights the challenges of communicating complex judicial processes to the public and the importance of relying on verified information rather than social media rumors.

Potential Pathways Forward

The Supreme Court's committee formation opens several potential pathways for addressing the issue of political freebies:

1. Regulatory Framework: The committee could develop recommendations for a regulatory framework that distinguishes between legitimate welfare measures and problematic electoral freebies.

2. Fiscal Responsibility Guidelines: The committee might establish guidelines for fiscal responsibility, ensuring that freebie promises are economically sustainable and do not compromise essential services.

3. Transparency Measures: The committee could propose measures to increase transparency in freebie announcements, requiring political parties to clearly articulate funding sources and implementation plans.

4. Bipartisan Consensus: By including representatives from all political parties, the committee might help build consensus on reasonable limits to the freebie culture.

5. Legislative Action: Ultimately, sustainable solutions may require legislative action, with the committee serving as a precursor to new laws governing political freebies.

The effectiveness of these pathways will depend on the committee's mandate, the willingness of political parties to cooperate, and the extent to which the Supreme Court is prepared to act on the committee's recommendations.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of India's decision to form an expert committee to examine political freebies represents a significant judicial intervention in a complex and contentious aspect of Indian democracy. By bringing together diverse stakeholders, the court aims to develop a comprehensive understanding of how freebies impact both elections and the economy.

While the committee formation has been criticized by some experts as potentially resulting in "burial by committee," it also offers an opportunity for informed dialogue about the balance between legitimate welfare measures and problematic electoral freebies. The court has articulated legitimate concerns about unemployment, resource misallocation, fiscal burden, and political exploitation, while acknowledging that some freebie initiatives do serve important social functions.

Ultimately, addressing the freebie culture will require nuanced solutions that distinguish between genuine welfare measures and politically motivated giveaways. The Supreme Court's committee, if given appropriate authority and follow-through, could help develop such solutions and guide India toward a more sustainable approach to political welfare promises.

Sources

1. SC forming panel to examine issue of freebies by political parties is 'burial by committee': Experts

2. Fact Check: Reality behind SC forming all-India organization of taxpayers to examine freebies

3. 'Why can't Centre form committee, call for all-party meeting', SC on PIL opposing freebies

4. Freebies culture in India

5. Distribution of freebies by political parties a serious issue: Supreme Court