Supreme Court Distinguishes Between Irrational Freebies and Essential Public Welfare Investments
The Supreme Court has drawn a clear distinction between 'irrational freebies' used by political parties to lure voters and legitimate 'welfare schemes' aimed at marginalized sections. The Court observed that while state largesse to individuals can be problematic, investing in health and education is a constitutional obligation under the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP). The Bench expressed concern over the lack of dedicated revenue surplus for developmental purposes and rising national debt. It is considering whether such freebies constitute a 'corrupt practice' under the Representation of the People Act.
Key Points
- The Court emphasized that launching welfare schemes is an obligation under the Directive Principles of State Policy.
- There is a legal debate on whether freebies should be classified as 'expenditure defrayable by the Union or State' under Article 282.
- The Court is shifting away from its 2013 judgment in the S. Subramaniam Balaji case regarding election manifesto promises.
- Concerns were raised about the fiscal health of states and the potential for freebies to create a 'parasitic existence' among the poor.
Exam Facts
- Article 282 of the Constitution (Expenditure defrayable by the Union or a State)
- Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (Corrupt practices)
- S. Subramaniam Balaji versus Tamil Nadu (2013) case
Read it. Retain it. Recall it.
Get spaced-repetition flashcards, daily quizzes and offline access — free on Android.