Author: Harpreet kaur
Maharishi Markandeshwar (Deemed to be University)
Abstract
This article critically examines the constitutional and legal implications of pre-election promises of freebies by political parties in India. Through an analysis of judicial precedents, constitutional doctrines, and the broader economic impact, it seeks to distinguish between genuine welfare initiatives and fiscally imprudent, populist measures intended to influence electoral outcomes. It further evaluates whether judicial intervention, Election Commission oversight, or legislative reform is necessary to uphold electoral integrity and ensure responsible fiscal governance.
The use of freebies in electoral campaigns remains a contentious and polarising issue in Indian politics. A recent nationwide survey across major urban centres reveals diverse public opinions on the matter, particularly in the context of growing concern over fiscal discipline.
The Prime Minister’s 2022 critique of the so-called “revdi culture” reignited national debate around the sustainability and ethicality of election-time giveaways. Unlike structured welfare schemes designed to produce enduring socio-economic development, freebies are typically short-term inducements aimed at gaining voter support, often devoid of long-term benefit or fiscal rationale.
To the Point
The growing trend of political parties offering pre-election incentives such as free electricity, gadgets, cash handouts, and loan waivers has stirred serious constitutional and legal discussions in India. While parties claim these are welfare measures aligned with Directive Principles of State Policy, critics argue they are fiscally irresponsible and undermine the principles of free and fair elections.
This article critically examines whether such practices of distributing or promising ‘freebies’ fall within the bounds of constitutional welfare or cross over into the territory of electoral malpractice. It explores whether this practice should be regulated through judicial pronouncements or left to legislative wisdom and public scrutiny.
Use of Legal Jargon
Understanding the legality of freebies involves applying several constitutional doctrines and statutory interpretations:
Electoral Integrity – A principle that ensures elections remain free from undue influence or inducement.
Doctrine of Public Trust – It Implies that public authorities hold state resources in trust for the people and must not misuse them for partisan gain.
Undue Influence and Electoral Bribery – Defined under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which prohibits inducement of voters through unlawful means.
Level Playing Field Doctrine – It ensures equal opportunity and fairness among political competitors during elections.
Fiscal Federalism – Emphasises responsible financial governance by both Union and State Governments.
Constitutional Morality – Encourages adherence not only to the letter of the Constitution but also to its spirit, promoting justice, fairness, and accountability.
The Proof
Raising Culture of Freebies in Elections
In recent years, election manifestos in India have become laden with promises of material incentives—smartphones, electric scooters, free electricity, water, housing, and even pilgrimage tours. These have become standard offerings in states like Punjab, Tamil Nadu, Delhi, and Uttar Pradesh. Political parties often portray these promises as extensions of their welfare agendas, but their timing and scale often raise suspicions about their true electoral motives.
Economic Impact of Freebie Politics
Several Indian states, including West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, and Punjab, spend a significant portion of their budget on subsidies and freebie schemes—often amounting to more than 40% of their expenditure. This trend causes:
Rising fiscal deficits and unsustainable debt levels
Erosion of creditworthiness
Displacement of critical capital expenditure
Long-term economic inefficiencies
Institutions like the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) and various Finance Commissions have flagged these expenditures as detrimental to fiscal health.
Distinction Between Welfare and Freebies
The Indian Constitution under Part IV provides for Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs) that obligate the State to promote the welfare of the people. Welfare schemes—such as employment guarantees, food security, and healthcare—are aimed at socio-economic upliftment.However, when political parties announce schemes without fiscal justification or planning, often just before elections, it becomes questionable whether such announcements serve public welfare or electoral gains. Welfare must be rooted in long-term developmental policy, whereas freebies are often unsustainable and electorally motivated.
Case Laws
1. S. Subramaniam Balaji v. State of Tamil Nadu (2013) 9 SCC 659
Facts: The petitioner challenged the distribution of free consumer goods (TVs, laptops, fans, etc.) by the Tamil Nadu Government based on electoral promises, arguing it violated constitutional and statutory principles.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that such schemes could not be declared unconstitutional merely because they were part of electoral promises. However, the Court acknowledged the need for guidelines and directed the Election Commission of India to formulate norms for manifestos.
Significance: The Court did not invalidate freebies but highlighted the policy vacuum around electoral promises.
2. Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002) 5 SCC 294
This case established the right to know as part of Article 19(1)(a), emphasising that voters should be fully informed about candidates and their promises. While not directly dealing with freebies, the principle of electoral transparency applies to assessing the feasibility of pre-election promises.
3.Lok Prahari v. Union of India (2018) 17 SCC 713
In this landmark judgment, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the Doctrine of Public Trust, holding that public funds are held in trust by the government and must be utilised strictly for public purposes. The Court categorically ruled that state resources cannot be diverted for personal glorification or political gain. Any expenditure from the public exchequer must serve a legitimate public interest and not be aimed at securing electoral advantage or promoting political figures.
4. Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) v. Union of India (2022)
This PIL, filed by Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, sought regulation of irrational freebies. The Supreme Court agreed that the matter needed attention and proposed the formation of a high-powered committee to assess the economic and legal implications of such practices.
Conclusion
The use of freebies in electoral campaigns occupies a grey area between legal permissibility and constitutional impropriety. While the Supreme Court has been cautious in labelling such practices as illegal, it has clearly recognised their potential to harm democratic ethos, fiscal federalism, and electoral fairness.
Populist giveaways, especially when declared without proper financial planning or statutory backing, could amount to a misuse of the public exchequer and an abuse of the electoral process. Despite that, banning freebies altogether could impinge upon genuine welfare programs that form the core of a social welfare state envisioned by the Constitution.
A middle path is necessary. This includes:
Legislative enactments mandating fiscal transparency in election manifestos.
Empowering the Election Commission to enforce guidelines and act against deceptive populism.
Promoting public awareness to ensure voters critically evaluate the promises made to them.
Encouraging judicial oversight in extreme cases of fiscal irresponsibility or bribery under the guise of welfare.
Ultimately, responsible democracy requires both political restraint and informed public participation. Freebies may offer immediate gratification, but they risk mortgaging the nation’s fiscal future for short-term political gains. A transparent, principled framework balancing welfare with responsibility is the need of the hour.
FAQS
Q1. Are freebies promised by political parties unconstitutional?
Not per se. The Supreme Court in the Balaji case (2013) did not declare freebies unconstitutional but acknowledged the need for regulatory norms. However, when such promises compromise the fairness of elections or misuse public funds, they may be challenged on constitutional grounds.
Q2. How are welfare schemes different from freebies?
Welfare schemes are designed to fulfil the State’s constitutional obligations and address socio-economic inequalities through planned and budgeted programs. Freebies, however, are often impulsive, unplanned, and electorally motivated incentives lacking long-term benefits or financial sustainability.
Q3. Can the Election Commission take action against parties offering freebies?
The Election Commission currently lacks statutory powers to disqualify parties for promising freebies unless there is a clear violation of the Model Code of Conduct or electoral laws. However, the Supreme Court has directed the Commission to frame guidelines, which are still evolving.
Q4. Explain the judicial role in controlling freebies?
The judiciary can step in where the public trust is breached, or if there is arbitrary use of public funds without legislative backing. However, courts are generally cautious in entering into matters of political policy unless constitutional values are clearly compromised.
Q5. Can voters or citizens challenge such practices in court?
Yes. Any citizen can file a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the High Court or Supreme Court challenging irrational freebie schemes that misuse public funds or violate constitutional rights.
Q6. Do freebies violate the Right to Equality under Article 14?
Potentially. If freebies are distributed unequally, without objective criteria, or for political motives, they may violate Article 14, which ensures equality before the law and non-arbitrary state action.
Q7. What are the financial risks of excessive freebies?
Freebie culture can lead to:
Fiscal deficits
Increase in public debt
Downgraded state credit ratings
Q8. Are freebies banned by our courts?
No outright ban has been imposed. In Balaji, the Court refrained from striking down freebie schemes but expressed concern about their long-term implications. It left the issue open for the Election Commission and Parliament to consider.
Q9. Can a constitutional amendment help curb freebies?
While possible under Article 368, a constitutional amendment to regulate freebies would be politically contentious. A more practical approach is statutory reform or guidelines under existing electoral and fiscal responsibility laws.
Q10. What reforms can effectively regulate freebies in elections?
Key suggested reforms include:
Making fiscal impact declarations compulsory with manifestos.
Enacting state-level Fiscal Responsibility Laws.
Strengthening judicial review in extreme cases.
Launching voter education campaigns to promote awareness of economic consequences.
