New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India on Monday issued notice to the Centre, the Election Commission of India and the Comptroller and Auditor General of India on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking a ban on the announcement of “irrational freebies” by political parties ahead of elections.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi said the plea would be tagged with a batch of pending petitions raising similar issues for hearing.
The petition, filed by advocate Narendra Goswami, seeks a declaration that the promise or distribution of freebies from public funds as electoral inducements amounts to “bribery” and a “corrupt practice” under Section 123(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Describing the issue in strong terms, the plea stated that it was “not a mere petition” but a “clarion call” to prevent the erosion of democratic values, warning that the country risks becoming an “auction house” where votes are exchanged for material inducements.
The petition argued that the growing trend of electoral promises—such as cash doles, consumer goods, and other material benefits—amounts to a “systemic, sophisticated and State-sanctioned bribe” that undermines the constitutional framework. It further contended that such practices create a “one-to-one transactional relationship” between voters and political parties, fostering quid pro quo arrangements and vitiating free and fair elections.
Relying on fiscal data, the petitioner also claimed that such schemes are economically unsustainable, asserting that governments are increasingly resorting to borrowing to fund freebies, thereby placing a financial burden on future generations.
The PIL has sought directions to the Election Commission to require political parties to disclose the financial implications of their promises through a “Fiscal Impact Statement”, and to take action—including de-recognition—against parties that fail to comply.
Additionally, the petition has urged the apex court to reconsider and overrule its 2013 judgment in S. Subramaniam Balaji vs State of Tamil Nadu, arguing that the ruling wrongly treated election promises as policy decisions without addressing their alleged quid pro quo nature.
It has also sought directions to the Comptroller and Auditor General to conduct a performance audit of freebie schemes to assess whether they meet the “public purpose” requirement under Article 282 of the Constitution.
Notably, the broader issue of poll freebies is already under consideration before the Supreme Court in a separate petition filed by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay.
In its 2013 judgment in the Subramanian Balaji case, the top court had held that the distribution of free colour television sets by the DMK government after winning the Tamil Nadu Assembly elections could not be treated as a “corrupt practice” under the Representation of the People Act.
With IANS inputs