Supreme Court refers freebies case to three-judge bench

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday referred to a three-judge bench the petitions filed by the BJP leader Ashwini Upadhyay seeking to direct the Election Commission of India to restrain political parties from disturbing freebies during elections. 

A bench comprising CJI NV Ramana, Justices Hima Kohli and CT Ravikumar opined that there were certain issues such as what is the scope of judicial intervention with respect to the reliefs sought, whether the appointment of the expert commission would serve any purpose that required extensive hearing before passing any orders.

The bench also asked the three-judge bench to consider whether the judgement 2013 of Subramanian Balaji that had upheld that states distributing largesse was directly related to DPSP’s needs re-consideration or not. 

In Subramanian Balaji’s judgement, the apex court while dealing with the issue of distribution of free gifts by the political parties such as DMK had observed that the state distributing largesse in the form of distribution of colour TVs, laptops, mixer-grinders etc. to eligible and deserving persons was directly related to the directive principles of the state policy.

On Wednesday, the bench had reiterated on the need for a debate to address the issue related to the distribution of freebies by political parties and had asked the Centre as to why it can not call for all party meetings to deliberate on the same. 

On Tuesday the court had said that there was a need to decide as to whether a “promise” qualified as a welfare measure or a freebie.

Citing an example of a shaving kit for a barber, bicycle for a student, equipment for the toddy tapper or iron for a washer man changing their lifestyle or uplifting them, the bench said what may seem like freebies to urban population might provide welfare to rural poor.

The CJI opined that all political parties in freebies were on one side and everyone wanted freebies to continue. Laying emphasis on the same, Ramana said that this was the reason as to why it had opined for the constitution of a neutral body comprising various stakeholders to give suggestions for addressing the freebies issue. 

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal who was invited by the bench in his capacity as a parliamentarian had contended that an “extensive debate” was needed before a decision could be taken on what is to be done. He had also suggested for the Finance Commission to look into the problem.

SG Tushar Mehta said, "If you’re financing in a manner that’s destroying the economy, is that permissible?”

Mehta had also said that the distribution of freebies by political parties resulted in the creation of an atmosphere that affected the informed choice of a voter. Mehta also submitted before the bench a list of autonomous institutions from whom the court could seek response by asking them to give their suggestions. 

Asserting that the distribution of freebies created an unlevel playing field, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh for Upadhyay expressed his concern for maintenance of financial discipline. He also said that the parties should disclose the source from where funds were being utilised for providing freebies. 

For the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), Senior Advocate AM Singhvi said that the court shouldn’t make preparations in advance for Parliament debate on the issue. 

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan also for Upadhyay had submitted that it would be easier to define freebies by what they were not. 

For the Election Commission of India Senior Advocate Arvind Datar had sought for review of the SC’s 2013 judgement passed in Subramaniam Balaji v State of Madras wherein the SC had while dealing with the issue of distribution of free gifts by the political parties such as DMK had observed that the State distributing largesse in the form of distribution of colour TVs, laptops, mixer-grinders etc. to eligible and deserving persons was directly related to the directive principles of the State Policy.

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday referred to a three-judge bench the petitions filed by the BJP leader Ashwini Upadhyay seeking to direct the Election Commission of India to restrain political parties from disturbing freebies during elections.  A bench comprising CJI NV Ramana, Justices Hima Kohli and CT Ravikumar opined that there were certain issues such as what is the scope of judicial intervention with respect to the reliefs sought, whether the appointment of the expert commission would serve any purpose that required extensive hearing before passing any orders. The bench also asked the three-judge bench to consider whether the judgement 2013 of Subramanian Balaji that had upheld that states distributing largesse was directly related to DPSP’s needs re-consideration or not.  In Subramanian Balaji’s judgement, the apex court while dealing with the issue of distribution of free gifts by the political parties such as DMK had observed that the state distributing largesse in the form of distribution of colour TVs, laptops, mixer-grinders etc. to eligible and deserving persons was directly related to the directive principles of the state policy. On Wednesday, the bench had reiterated on the need for a debate to address the issue related to the distribution of freebies by political parties and had asked the Centre as to why it can not call for all party meetings to deliberate on the same.  On Tuesday the court had said that there was a need to decide as to whether a “promise” qualified as a welfare measure or a freebie. Citing an example of a shaving kit for a barber, bicycle for a student, equipment for the toddy tapper or iron for a washer man changing their lifestyle or uplifting them, the bench said what may seem like freebies to urban population might provide welfare to rural poor. The CJI opined that all political parties in freebies were on one side and everyone wanted freebies to continue. Laying emphasis on the same, Ramana said that this was the reason as to why it had opined for the constitution of a neutral body comprising various stakeholders to give suggestions for addressing the freebies issue.  Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal who was invited by the bench in his capacity as a parliamentarian had contended that an “extensive debate” was needed before a decision could be taken on what is to be done. He had also suggested for the Finance Commission to look into the problem. SG Tushar Mehta said, "If you’re financing in a manner that’s destroying the economy, is that permissible?” Mehta had also said that the distribution of freebies by political parties resulted in the creation of an atmosphere that affected the informed choice of a voter. Mehta also submitted before the bench a list of autonomous institutions from whom the court could seek response by asking them to give their suggestions.  Asserting that the distribution of freebies created an unlevel playing field, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh for Upadhyay expressed his concern for maintenance of financial discipline. He also said that the parties should disclose the source from where funds were being utilised for providing freebies.  For the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), Senior Advocate AM Singhvi said that the court shouldn’t make preparations in advance for Parliament debate on the issue.  Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan also for Upadhyay had submitted that it would be easier to define freebies by what they were not.  For the Election Commission of India Senior Advocate Arvind Datar had sought for review of the SC’s 2013 judgement passed in Subramaniam Balaji v State of Madras wherein the SC had while dealing with the issue of distribution of free gifts by the political parties such as DMK had observed that the State distributing largesse in the form of distribution of colour TVs, laptops, mixer-grinders etc. to eligible and deserving persons was directly related to the directive principles of the State Policy.