The Supreme Court on Thursday expressed strong oral reservations about the growing trend of State Governments announcing so-called ‘freebies’ in the run-up to elections. The Court questioned how long such practices would continue and warned that unchecked distribution of benefits could adversely affect the country’s long-term economic health.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi made the observations while hearing a writ petition filed by the Tamil Nadu Power Distribution Company Ltd challenging Rule 23 of the Electricity Amendment Rules, 2024.
Court Questions Sustainability of Free Schemes
During the hearing, the bench noted that indiscriminate distribution of State benefits without distinguishing between those who genuinely need support and those who can afford services amounts to appeasement. According to the Court, such an approach is not conducive to sustainable economic development.
The judges also referred to recent elections in some states where welfare announcements were made shortly before polling. The Court raised concerns about the long-term impact of direct cash transfer schemes, asking whether such measures could discourage people from working.
‘Economic Development Will Be Hampered’
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant verbally observed, “The economic development of the nation will be hampered with this kind of largesse distribution Yes, it is the State’s duty to provide. But the ones who are enjoying freebies.. is it not something that should be looked at?”
He further pointed out the fiscal strain on states, adding, “States are running into deficit but still giving freebies. See, 25 per cent of revenue you collect in a year, why can it not be used for the development of the State?”
Issue Not Limited to One State
The bench clarified that the concern was not directed at any single state but applied broadly across the country. Justice Joymalya Bagchi emphasised the need for structured financial planning.
He stated, “It’s not one State we are talking about; it’s about all states. It is a planned expenditure. Why don’t you make Budget proposals and give justification that this is my outlay on unemployment of people?”
The matter came up during proceedings related to the Electricity Amendment Rules, but the Court’s remarks have once again brought the debate over election-time welfare promises into sharp focus.
