New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday observed that it was not against the welfare schemes that intend to reduce inequality among people and is just concerned about the "right way of sending money to the people".
The bench led by the Chief Justice of India, NV Ramana, was hearing BJP member and Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay's petition that had sought a ban on political parties offering "freebies as it leads to huge debt on states". The central government had also supported the petition and the top court had suggested a constitution of a body of experts that could give suggestions on how to deal with the issue.
Political parties and individuals cannot be prevented from making poll promises aimed at fulfilling the constitutional mandate and the term freebie should not be confused with genuine welfare measures, the Supreme Court said. Observing that the voters are not looking for freebies, the top court referred to the Mahatma Gandhi Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme and said, "Given an opportunity, they will look for dignified earning".
"We all must remember the good old saying: There is no free lunch'," the apex court said, adding the concern is about the right way of spending public money. "There has to be a distinction between the offer of ornaments, television sets, consumer electronics free of cost and real welfarist offers. The promise of free coaching for professional courses cannot be compared with the promise of free white goods," the bench that also included justices J K Maheshwari and Hima Kohli said.
It said that the issue of regulating freebies is getting increasingly complicated and asked all the stakeholders to give their suggestions on the proposed panel while fixing the PIL for hearing on August 22.
Also read:PM Modi cautions against 'free revdi culture', says practice harmful for country's progress
At the outset, the bench said the expression freebie' should not be confused with genuine welfare measures and gave illustrations to distinguish between freebies and real welfarist offer. As rightly pointed out by some of you, Article 38 (2) of the Constitution mandates the State to strive to minimize inequalities in income, and endeavour to eliminate inequalities in status, facilities, and opportunities, not only amongst individuals but also amongst groups of people residing in different areas or engaged in different vocations.
You cannot prevent a political party or individual from making promises that are aimed at fulfilling this constitutional mandate if elected to power. The question is what exactly qualifies as a valid promise, the CJI observed. "Can the promise to provide free and compulsory education to all be termed as a freebie," the bench asked.
Can we describe the promise of subsidy on power, seeds, and fertilizers to small and marginal farmers to make agriculture remunerative as a freebie? Can we describe the promise to provide free and universal health care as a freebie? Can we describe the promise to provide safe drinking water free of cost to every citizen as a freebie, it observed.
"Concern is about the right way of spending public money. Now we have come across some new arguments. Some say taxpayers' hard-earned money is wasted on freebies. And some others say, it is essential to spend public money on welfare measures. Is this court competent to examine these questions? The issue is getting increasingly complicated," the CJI said.
The bench deferred the hearing to August 22 after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, said that senior advocate Kapil Sibal wanted to submit his suggestions.
