Supreme Court Critiques ‘Freebie’ Culture, Warns of Economic Impact
New Delhi – The Supreme Court of India on Thursday sharply criticized the growing trend of political parties offering “freebies” to voters in exchange for support, warning that such practices hinder long-term economic development and potentially create a culture of dependency.
The court’s observations came during a hearing concerning a petition filed by the Tamil Nadu Power Distribution Corporation Ltd., challenging a rule within the Electricity Amendment Rules 2024. However, the discussion quickly broadened to encompass the wider issue of pre-election promises of free goods and services.
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi, expressed concern over the indiscriminate distribution of benefits without differentiating between those who can afford to pay and those who genuinely require assistance. “What kind of culture are we developing?” the Chief Justice asked, questioning whether such policies amounted to “appeasement” rather than genuine welfare.
The court acknowledged the importance of providing relief to marginalized communities but stressed the need for a more targeted approach. “It is understandable that, as a welfare state, you want to provide relief to the marginalized,” CJI Kant said. “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?”
The justices voiced concern that states, even those with revenue surpluses, should prioritize investments in infrastructure – roads, hospitals, and schools – rather than diverting funds to widespread distribution of free goods. “Even if you are a revenue surplus state, is it not your obligation to spend that amount for the development of the overall public?” the CJI asked.
The court also questioned the timing of many of these announcements, noting that welfare schemes are often unveiled shortly before elections. “We know what is happening in the nearest places where the last elections took place. Why suddenly schemes are announced near elections?” CJI Kant remarked. “It is high time that all political stalwarts, leaders, parties, and all social engineers, they need to revisit everything.”
A particularly pointed question raised by the court centered on the potential impact on the workforce. “If you start giving right from the morning free food, free gas, free electricity… You are directly transferring cash in the account. Why should the people work then?” the CJI asked, suggesting that such policies could disincentivize employment and hinder national development. “From where they are going to learn the work when they know everything I will get from one platform? Is it the nation-building we are doing?”
The court acknowledged that it was already considering other petitions related to the issue of freebies, indicating a broader intent to address the problem. The bench agreed to examine the Tamil Nadu power company’s petition and issued notice to the Union government.
The CJI emphasized the fundamental principle that individuals should contribute to the cost of services they receive, stating, “The fundamental principle is that a person should pay for availing the services.” While clarifying that the court wasn’t advocating for profiteering, the CJI stressed the importance of cost recovery from those who are able to afford it.
The Supreme Court’s intervention comes amid growing debate about the sustainability and ethical implications of pre-election promises of free goods and services, a practice that has become increasingly common in Indian politics. The court’s concerns echo those previously expressed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who in 2022 warned against a “revdi culture” – a term used to describe the distribution of freebies to garner votes – and its potential harm to the country’s economic progress.
