3-judge Supreme Court bench to hear PILs on freebies | India News

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday referred to a three-judge bench for wider discussion petitions seeking a regulatory mechanism to curb economically harmful freebies announced by political parties on election eve to lure voters.
A bench of Chief Justice N V Ramana and Justices Hima Kohli and C T Ravikumar said, “Freebies may create a situation wherein the government cannot provide basic amenities due to lack of funds and the state is pushed towards imminent bankruptcy. In the same breath, we should remember that such freebies are extended utilising taxpayers’ money only for increasing the popularity of the party and electoral prospects.”

However, it did not lose sight of the objections raised primarily by AAP and DMK against the SC examining the validity of freebies. It said, “There can be no denying the fact that in an electoral democracy such as ours, the true power ultimately lies with the electorate. It is the electorate that decides which party or candidate comes to power, and also judges the performance of the said party or candidate at the end of the legislative term, during the next round of the elections.”
“It is also necessary to highlight herein the point raised by some of the intervenors, that all promises cannot be equated with freebies as they relate to welfare schemes or measures for the public good. Not only are these a part of the Directive Principles of State Policy, but are also a responsibility of the welfare state. At the same time, the worry raised by the petitioners herein, that under the guise of electoral promises, fiscal responsibility is being dispensed with, must also be considered,” it said.
The CJI-led bench framed preliminary questions for the three-judge bench to debate and adjudicate: “What is the scope of judicial intervention with respect to the reliefs sought in the present batch of petitions; whether any enforceable order can be passed by this court in these petitions; whether the appointment of a commission/expert body by the court would serve any purpose in this matter; additionally, what should be the scope, composition and powers of the said commission/expert body?”
While referring the PILs filed by Ashwini Upadhyay and others to a three-judge bench, the SC said: “Looking at the complexity of the issues involved, and the prayer to overrule a judgment rendered by a two-judge bench of this court in S Subramaniam Balaji (2013), we direct listing of these set of petitions before a three-judge bench after obtaining the orders of the CJI. List after four weeks.”