Three-Judge SC Panel to Hear Case Involving ‘Freebies’ Promised by Political Parties

GG News Bureau

New Delhi, 26^th August. The Supreme Court (SC) referred the freebies case to a three-judge panel on Friday, stating that the issue of freebies promised by political parties during election campaigns requires extensive discussion.

Because of the “complexity” of the freebies issues, a three-judge bench was formed by Chief Justice NV Ramana, Justices Hima Kohli, and CT Ravikumar.

While referring the case to a three-judge bench, the Supreme Court stated that its 2013 decision in the Subramaniam Balaji v/s Government of Tamil Nadu case on the same issue may need to be reconsidered.

“The issues raised by parties require an extensive hearing. Certain preliminary hearings need to be determined, such as what is the scope of judicial intervention, whether the appointment of an expert body by the court serves any purpose, etc. Many parties also submitted that judgment in the Subramaniam Balaji case requires reconsideration. The Court in the said case held such practices would not amount to corrupt practices. Looking at the complexity of issues and the prayer to overrule Subramaniam Balaji case, we refer the matters to a three-judge bench,” the bench observed in its order.

The order came in response to a slew of petitions challenging political parties’ promises of freebies.

Previously, the Supreme Court had asked the Centre why it could not convene an all-party meeting to resolve issues concerning the promise of freebies during election campaigns. While acknowledging the complexity of the issue, CJI Ramana stated that the court’s intention was to initiate a wider public debate on the issue, and the formation of an expert body was proposed for that purpose.

During the previous hearing, the Supreme Court stated that the issue of freebies is complex and that there is a need to distinguish between welfare schemes and other promises made by political parties prior to elections.

It had stated that a commission comprised of Niti Aayog, the Finance Commission, ruling and opposition parties, the Reserve Bank of India, and other stakeholders was required to make recommendations on how to control political party freebies.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who is assisting the Supreme Court on the matter, stated that a “non-political body” such as the Finance Commission could investigate the matter and make recommendations.

CJI also stated that it cannot prevent political parties from making promises during election campaigns, but the question is what constitutes the right promises and how public money should be spent.

Political parties such as the Aam Aadmi Party, the Congress, and the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) have sought to intervene and oppose the petition. The AAP had filed an application claiming that electoral promises like free water, free electricity, and free transportation are not “freebies,” but are absolutely necessary in an unequal society.

One of the petitions filed by advocate Ashwini Upadhyay requested that election symbols be seized and political parties that promised to distribute irrational freebies from public funds be deregistered.

According to the plea, political parties arbitrarily promise irrational freebies for wrongful gain in order to sway voters in their favor, which is analogous to bribery and undue influence.

It claimed that promising or distributing irrational freebies from public funds prior to elections could unduly influence voters, shake the foundations of a free and fair election, and disrupt the level playing field, in addition to tainting the election process’s purity.