SC suggests putting in ‘dispassionate’ body to resolve freebies issue

The Supreme Court on August 3 said the Parliament might not be able to effectively debate the problem of doing away with "irrational freebies" offered to voters during elections, saying the "reality" is that not one party wants to require away freebies.

The court suggested putting in a specialised body composed of persons who can “dispassionately” examine the matter.

The observations from a Bench led by magistrate of India N.V. Ramana came whilst the Centre said these freebies were paving the thanks to an "economic disaster" besides "distorting the informed decision of voters". The Centre, represented by law officer Tushar Mehta, said it "substantially and in principle" supported doing away with the practice of promising freebies to voters.

Mr. Mehta said the court should allow the commission of India (ECI) to "apply its mind" to the matter.

But senior advocate Kapil Sibal said the ECI should be "kept away" from the discussion on freebies. "ECI is MFI (Most Favoured Institution)," Mr. Sibal. He said the difficulty was political and economical in nature and failed to just concern elections.

"The Parliament will need to debate," Mr. Sibal said.

The court said the govt in addition as organisations like Niti Aayog, Finance Commission of India, the Law Commission, Federal Reserve Bank of India, Opposition, etc, need to be involved within the process of brainstorming on the matter of freebies and are available up with constructive conclusions on the problem.

The court directed the parties to form "suggestions for the composition of a body". It proposed that this body could examine ways to resolve the problem of freebies and file a report before the Centre or the ECI. The court said once the parties come up with suggestions on the composition of such a body during a week, it'd pass orders.

Senior advocate Vikas Singh, for petitioner Ashwini Upadhyay, said political parties and people in power in states riddled by debts should first set out publicly about where they'd source the cash for paying for the largesse.

"It must be revealed from whose pockets these freebies are bought," Mr. Singh submitted.

"A unfortunate person feels that what's put in his left pocket would be taken out of his right pocket in an exceedingly few years," Mr. Mehta joined in.

Chief Justice Ramana said ordinary citizens pay taxes on the idea that their money would be used for progress.

"State benefits mustn't just reach the rich. The poor are entitled to benefits," the CJI said.

Mr. Singh suggested that ECI could prepare a "model manifesto" to regulate freebies.

Chief Justice Ramana retorted that if the ECI had haunted the problem, the court wouldn't have had to intervene now. The court said its judgments against violence during elections still be ignored.

The Bench said there was no point in "empty formalities" like model manifestos. Nor would there be any purpose within the court engaging in lengthy debates to border guidelines on the difficulty of freebies. the answer should be found among the stakeholders, including Opposition parties and even Chief Ministers. The proposed body may help.

"It can not be that you simply (political parties) do whatever you wish for four years so a Model Code of Conduct is put in situ days before the elections," the court said, scheduling the case for next Thursday.

The petitioner, Mr. Upadhyay, had argued that the offer and distribution of "irrational freebies" amounted to bribery and unduly influencing voters. It vitiated free and fair elections within the country.

Mr. Upadhyay claimed that states in total have debts tallying to over ₹ 70 lakh crore.