Poll-eve freebies: Supreme Court refers PIL to three-judge Bench

New Delhi, August 26

Advertisement

Looking at the complexity of issues involved, the Supreme Court on Friday referred a PIL against poll-eve irrational freebies promised by political parties to a three-judge Bench.

“Looking at the complexity of issues and the prayer to overrule Subramaniam Balaji case (2013), we refer the matters to a three-judge Bench.”,” a Bench led by Chief Justice of India NV Ramana said.

“The issues raised by parties require extensive hearing. Certain preliminary hearings need to be determined, such as what is the scope of judicial intervention; whether appointment of an expert body by court serves any purpose, etc. Many parties also submitted that judgment in Subramaniam Balaji requires reconsideration. The court in the said case held such practices would not amount to corrupt practices,” the Bench noted.

After deliberating on various suggestions, including setting up a panel to examine the issue, CJI Ramana had on Wednesday said the PIL filed by Delhi BJP leader Ashwini Upadhyay against poll-eve irrational freebies should be heard by a Bench led by Justice DY Chandrachud as he was part of the Bench that earlier pronounced a verdict on freebies.

Upadhyay has sought directions to the Election Commission not to permit political parties to promise freebies during election campaigns as they make such promises without any assessment on financial implication on state economy. The tax-payers’ money is misused by political parties to remain in power and the practice also adversely affects free and fair elections.

Political parties such as AAP and DMK and Congress—which intervened in the matter—contended that freebies must be distinguished from welfare measures for the poor.

During the hearing on Tuesday, CJI Ramana had said, “We have to see what is freebie and what is welfare…For example, some states give cycles to the poor and women. It is reported that giving bicycles has improved lifestyle. The problem is which a freebie is and which can be said to be a beneficiary for the upliftment of a person. For a rural poverty-stricken person, his livelihood may depend on that small boat or bicycle. We can’t sit here and argue on this.”

“Those in opposition today can come into power tomorrow and they will have to manage this. So, things like freebies etc which can destroy the economy has to be looked into and I just cannot pass a mandamus. There needs to be a debate,” the CJI had noted.