A lawsuit has just been filed in the Supreme Court asking the Electoral Commission of India (ECI) to take an election symbol or deregister a political party that promises or distributes "irrational freebies" from public monies before to elections.
Demand of the petitioners:
Violates free and fair elections: The ECI's mandate for free and fair elections, according to the petitioner, is violated by arbitrary offers of nonsensical gifts.
Violation of many constitutional articles: Articles 14 (equality before the law), 162 (executive power of a State), 266(3) (expenditure from the Consolidated Fund of India), and 282 (discretionary grants) of the Constitution plainly prohibit the distribution of private goods and services from public monies.
Enact a legislation: The appeal also asked the Supreme Court to order the Union to enact legislation in this area.
Amendment to the Order: It asked the ECI to amend the relevant paragraphs of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 to include an additional condition.
Reasons behind the freebies:
Essential for Fulfilling Expectations: In a country like India, where states have (or don't have) a particular amount of development, people have expectations that are met by such promises of freebies when elections come around.
Competitive in nature: Furthermore, when residents of neighbouring/other states (with different ruling parties) receive freebies, there are comparable expectations.
Aids Marginalised sections: With states that have a lesser level of development and a higher percentage of the population living in poverty, such freebies become a necessity, and it becomes necessary to provide such subsidies to the people for their own upliftment.
Challenges with the Freebies:
Economic Cost: This imposes a significant financial burden on the state and federal budgets.
Against a Free and Fair Electoral: The promise of irrational freebies from public monies before elections swayes people, disrupts the level playing field, and taints the election process.
Unethical nature: It amounts to unethical behaviour akin to bribing the electorate.
Principle of Inequality: Using public monies to distribute private products or services that are not for public purposes before an election breaches many provisions of the Constitution, notably Article 14 (equality before law).
Supreme Court Verdict:
S Subramaniam Balaji vs. Government of Tamil Nadu: In the case of S Subramaniam Balaji vs. Government of Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court ruled that unrealistic political promises and giveaways are a major issue that disrupts election fairness.
Not a corrupt practice: The court also held that promises made in an election manifesto cannot be construed as "corrupt practise" under the Representation of People Act or any other applicable law.
Can’t be curtailed: The distribution of freebies cannot be stopped when the ruling party uses public funds for this purpose by passing Appropriation Acts in the state legislature.
Ordered for Guidelines for content in manifesto: At the same time, the court pointed out that there is no law directly governing the contents of election manifestos, and ordered ECI to draught guidelines in conjunction with all recognised political parties.
Way Forward:
Better Policy Reach: The economic policies or development models that the parties intend to execute must be expressed clearly and effectively.
Bring associated costs: Furthermore, the parties should have (and offer) a thorough understanding of the economics and costs associated with such measures.
Demand-Based Freebies: India is a large country, and there are still a great number of people living in poverty.
Reasonable Freebies: Offering reasonable and practical freebies or subsidies that can be easily accommodated in a state's budget does little harm and can be leveraged.
Differentiating Subsidies from Freebies: It's also important to distinguish between subsidies and freebies, because subsidies are justified and explicitly targeted benefits that result from demand.
Awareness: People should be aware of the harm they are doing when they sell their votes for gifts. They cannot expect competent leaders if they do not oppose.
