The Crossbill Team
Expressing serious concern over the growing culture of pre-election giveaways, the Supreme Court of India on Thursday (February 19) made sharp oral observations on the practice of state governments announcing “freebies” ahead of polls, cautioning that such measures could undermine the country’s long-term economic development.
The court described the indiscriminate distribution of state benefits—without distinguishing between those who can afford to pay and those who cannot—as “appeasement, which is not conducive to the economic development of the country,” reported Live Law.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi made the remarks while hearing a writ petition filed by the Tamil Nadu Power Distribution Company Ltd challenging Rule 23 of the Electricity Amendment Rules 2024.
“Is it in the public interest that…the State is absorbing all these? Because of freebies, the entire country is already…we are not talking of Tamil Nadu in particular. We are talking of pan-India. What kind of culture are we developing? What is the distinction between persons who are capable of paying the electricity bill and persons who are marginalised?” asked CJI Kant.
“It is understandable that, as a welfare state, you want to provide relief to the marginalised. But without drawing any distinction between those who can afford and those who cannot afford, if you start giving, will it not amount to a sort of appeasing policy?” he added.
Observing that the trend was visible across states, CJI Kant said, “We are sometimes really disturbed. Even if you are a revenue surplus state, is it not your obligation to spend that amount for the development of the overall public, to develop roads, hospitals, and schools. Instead of that, you keep on distributing food, clothes, and people enjoy everything at the time of elections. What is happening in this country?”
He further noted, “It is understandable when some people cannot afford, you have to provide. There are children who cannot afford education, then state must provide. It is the state’s duty. There are children who are bright but cannot afford to go to medical colleges, State must help themn. But the persons who can enjoy, has all means available and are affluent and therefore any kind of freebie first comes to their pocket. Is it not high time for the states to revisit these policy frameworks?” reported Live Law.
Emphasising the principle of fiscal responsibility, CJI Kant said that ordinarily, individuals should pay for services they avail.
“We know what is happening in the nearest places where the last elections took place. Why suddenly schemes are announced near elections? It is hightime that all political stalwarts, leaders, parties, and all social engineers, they need to revisit everything. We will be hampering the development of the nation if we keep on having this largesse distribution. There has to be a balance. But how long this will continue?” he remarked.
The court described the indiscriminate distribution of state benefits—without distinguishing between those who can afford to pay and those who cannot—as “appeasement, which is not conducive to the economic development of the country,” reported Live Law.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi made the remarks while hearing a writ petition filed by the Tamil Nadu Power Distribution Company Ltd challenging Rule 23 of the Electricity Amendment Rules 2024.
“Is it in the public interest that…the State is absorbing all these? Because of freebies, the entire country is already…we are not talking of Tamil Nadu in particular. We are talking of pan-India. What kind of culture are we developing? What is the distinction between persons who are capable of paying the electricity bill and persons who are marginalised?” asked CJI Kant.
“It is understandable that, as a welfare state, you want to provide relief to the marginalised. But without drawing any distinction between those who can afford and those who cannot afford, if you start giving, will it not amount to a sort of appeasing policy?” he added.
Observing that the trend was visible across states, CJI Kant said, “We are sometimes really disturbed. Even if you are a revenue surplus state, is it not your obligation to spend that amount for the development of the overall public, to develop roads, hospitals, and schools. Instead of that, you keep on distributing food, clothes, and people enjoy everything at the time of elections. What is happening in this country?”
He further noted, “It is understandable when some people cannot afford, you have to provide. There are children who cannot afford education, then state must provide. It is the state’s duty. There are children who are bright but cannot afford to go to medical colleges, State must help themn. But the persons who can enjoy, has all means available and are affluent and therefore any kind of freebie first comes to their pocket. Is it not high time for the states to revisit these policy frameworks?” reported Live Law.
Emphasising the principle of fiscal responsibility, CJI Kant said that ordinarily, individuals should pay for services they avail.
“We know what is happening in the nearest places where the last elections took place. Why suddenly schemes are announced near elections? It is hightime that all political stalwarts, leaders, parties, and all social engineers, they need to revisit everything. We will be hampering the development of the nation if we keep on having this largesse distribution. There has to be a balance. But how long this will continue?” he remarked.
Comments (0)
Leave a Comment