Rohaan Thyagaraju is a third-year law undergraduate pursuing a BBA LLB degree from Symbiosis Law School. Read More
Abstract
The article centers on a controversial case in India’s political arena, ‘‘freebies” and the election of Subramanian Balaji. Perhaps, Freebies of society’s bare necessities and luxurious products and services have formed an essential part of the Indian political campaigns since Independence. This practice was challenged in the legal framework with another writ petition filed by Subramanian Balaji against the freebies in the form of Television sets, household appliances, and livestock by the Tamil Nadu government. The case shed light on serious issues, such as questions of fairness of freebies, especially in the election process, and fiscal responsibility, among others. The Supreme Court of India further discussed the issue of defining freebies and the economic effect, along with balancing free speech and free elections on the one hand and the prudent use of public resources. However, the Court did not order it banned outright but said that these should be referred to an expert committee, and till such a ruling comes, the Court will pass orders after hearing from the committee. The case is highly pertinent to the future conduct of the elections.
Keywords: Freebies, economic impact, Tamil Nadu, GDP, Election Commission of India
Introduction
India has long been called the “Land of Freebies” due to its tradition of political patronage of freebies (a thing that is provided or given free of charge), especially during the state assembly polls. Characteristic of the country’s post-independence political discourse, this phenomenon has become a growing point of debate in the recent past.
The categories of such freebies are broad and cross areas considered basic needs, such as food and clothes, to areas that some people consider luxury, such as electronics, televisions, and laptops. Advocates entail that these schemes assist in eradicating poverty and the living standards of the disadvantaged. On the same note, critics argue that such practices stretch available resources, perpetuate dependency, and are bad for future economic growth. The controversy over freebies was at its height in 2014 and involved the state of Tamil Nadu. The state had witnessed many welfare measures from the government. However, giving away free televisions launched by the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (D.M.K.) government led to much discussion and legal action.
The basis of such a row involved the Public Interest Litigation (P.I.L.) that was heard and filed in Madras High Court by lawyer Subramanian Balaji[1]. We can see in Balaji’s petition an apparent attack on the D.M.K. government’s policy to distribute free televisions, terming it as a misuse of public funds and violating the electoral code. The case soon went viral nationwide, but more importantly, it unveiled a general trend of freebie culture on the health of Indian democracy and the economy.
At first, the Madras High Court refused to entertain Balaji’s petition, but this is not the end of the story. Noting the importance of the case, it was, therefore, taken to the Supreme Court of India. These cases also brought in the apex court that indicated the nationalist character of the problem beyond the state parameters and party differentiation. The Subramanian Balaji case was unique in that the verdict of the Supreme Court was multidimensional and complex. Even though it did not directly prohibit the provision of freebies, it established specific directives, axioms, and a guideline for the court. The judgment recognized that the welfare measures could be very close to electoral bribes. This particular case is among the most famous Indian legal cases known as the Subramanian Balaji Case, which focuses on the issues of government responsibility and sound financial policies. It acknowledged the state’s power to make provisions relating to welfare schemes, including reasonable restrictions.
The Election Commission was asked to develop codes of conduct regarding the manifestos of political parties to ensure pledges that parties can only fulfill without compromising the national budget. The case also wanted voters to know the cost of the freebies and a clear demarcation between the general welfare state and vote-buying gimmicks. It influenced political parties to rethink their campaign agendas while voters paid more attention to versions given by the various candidates. The heated debate has continued, proving the relationship between populism, social protection, and economic democracy in India. The ‘Leh-Ladengey 15 Rupees case is one of the leading cases in India and, perhaps, the world, which helped define the future discourse on governance, electoral integrity, and statecraft on the cusp of the end of the millennium.
Identifying the overall degree of correlation between the given factors
The Court did not leave hatred inside and out in exchanging freebies but argued that it was not the council’s turn to purposeful, methodical proof affairs. He has helped the Election Commission of India by asking for guidelines for the ideologically motivated groups’ political decision-making statements to control the grant pledges. This emphasized the notion that the citizens vote in a more informed manner while, at the same time, offering various ideological organizations avenues through which they could explain how they planned to fund their pre-contemplated agendas. This case led to a much broader analysis of giveaways in India compared to the previous example. Tamil Nadu has been a standard bearer of freebie politics[2]where CMs from different political ideologies gave products such as computers, blenders, processors, and, most surprisingly, gold.
Freebies, according to critics:
It tends to increase the critical requirement of state budgets, which can lead to a more significant deficit. The funds may need to be diverted from necessary formation to advance programs. To a large extent, creating a culture of dependency among citizens is possible. In contrast, the proponents of freebies continue by stating that goodies can complement the lack of provision for the present needs of people living in the streets while also lessening the needy’s dependence on the use of requirements. Some programs provide people from vulnerable segments of the population with free training or medical care, which can make a huge difference in their lives. Such tactics ensure rubbish abundance redistribution in a country with colossal exchange rate volatility. However, some strategies have been reviewed due to the Subramanian Balaji case and subsequent debate. The Election Commission of India presently looks for ideological groupings to give more incredible information about how their remarks influence money found in political decisions. Nonetheless, the discussion continues.
In recent years, however, there has been some attempt to differentiate between direct subsidies given to the farming sector and mere handouts. It should not be allowed to use freebies for some essential fundamental services like training and medical treatment. Some questions for more monetary accountability in selecting promises.
The dilemma remains as to where to provide subsidies to the financially needy while being mindful of the dangers of wasteful spending or draining the existing financial resources dry. These free grounds may be a rational and relevant strategy for funding since, as India faces poverty and stability in GDP growth, the freebies form a continuous issue in the political and monetary debate. Subsequently, in 2014, the Election Commission of India[3] issued these procedures for declaring political decisions as expected by the Supreme Court of India in the case of S Subramaniam Balaji vs Tamil Nadu Administration. According to the Electoral Commission, the electoral manifesto shall not be unlawful or against the Constitution. It shall turn attention to the spirit and purpose of the Constitution and its principles.
Background
It raised social concerns about political parties offering various gifts during campaigns in India. Most general freebie examples are free electricity, free water, accessible goods and services, student and mortgage debt cancellation, and cash payments. The candidates asked the Court to regulate such pledges, noting that they distorted the popularity-based cycle and stretched the overall public finances. This case is critical because it foregrounds the nearly inconsequential difference between gratis measures and libertarian conspiracies that may be monetarily negligible.
The solicitors present a few significant contentions:
- Mutilation of informed direction: They claimed that the offer of freebies broke the autonomy of the citizens as they acted based on the feeble promises of an emerging candidate or strategies of a given party.
- Violation of free and fair elections: To that end, the petitioners claim that these promises interfere with Article 324 of the Indian Constitution which protects election integrity. The challengers said that these commitments bring imbalances to the conflict between ideological settings.
- payment and unjustified impact: The solicitors likened freebies to payment and over-exoneration, regarded as unlawful by the Portrayal of Individuals Act of 1951.
- Monetary unreliability: They argued that the realization of such treaties surpasses state funding; thus, it leads to the escalation of the obligation and expected financial instability
- Absence of responsibility: The applicants are then told there is no mechanism for punishing ideological groupings for their pre-political decision assurances.
Analysis
The Supreme Court of India grappled with several complicated issues when considering this case:
- Characterizing freebies: The Court considered this to be evaluating freebie measures and freebies. Understanding the country’s varied economic development levels, the Indian leadership came to understand that what might be a luxury product to some might be necessary to others in another state.
- State funds: The Court also feared the effect of such undertakings on the state’s finances and, therefore, the need for a monetary obligation as required under regulation. Concerning the data, the voters were more often right than wrong.
The Court further looked at the possibility of allowing electors to choose whether or not to be informed on aspects such as the monetary outcomes of Political parties. The role of the Election
Commission of India[4] is central since the Court analyzed the capacities of the Election Commission of India and its possibilities to regulate pre-political race promises. The Court then looked into other available sacred orders, including the liberty to express discourse and articulation, which ideological grouping could use to guarantee their right to make assurances. It is pertinent to note that the Supreme Court did not make a judgment on this issue. These are the following steps: It is appreciated that the problem is multifaceted, and ESV’s impact is far-reaching; hence, we advocated for a three-bench seat.
The Court suggested that an expert committee be formed to determine the issue exhaustively. It was proposed that this board invite several partners, such as ideological organizations, the Election Commission of India, the Finance Commission, the RBI, and independent experts. No immediate restriction: While the Court appreciated the complexity of the issue and the need for a broad investigation into the freebie regulations, it did not, by this decision, halt freebie promises. The Court also showed that it should think twice before setting rules for ideological groupings regarding pre-political race guarantees while simultaneously talking and engaged.
Conclusion
The Subramanian Balaji has been at the center of controversy and has led to a great debate across the country regarding the use of freebies in Indian governance and the economic effects. The impact of this case might be felt widely in numerous electoral reforms that are needed in different democracies, especially on elective political party manifestos and campaign vows. This is especially due to the recent ruling made by the Supreme Court which has drawn attention to the fact that there is a requirement for more sobriety when it comes to believing in the promises being made for the elections and their consequences on the fiscal policy of the country. It has pointed to the difficulty of differentiating between real welfare policies and electoral shenanigans meant for vote-getting purposes only.
These two concepts should be well understood to guarantee the non-interference of outside forces in the democratic processes as well as check on responsible leadership. However, the case has also brought into the foreground the aspect of voter education on the financial implications of such promises. By acting as an independent, it seeks to inform the electorate more to enable people to make better choices in casting their votes. The controversy arising from the case remains relevant to politics in India so far as it has equipped the political parties with enough food for thought in the manner they plan their campaigns while voters have been made to think twice about the promises made by politicians. While India continues to struggle between the goals of social justice and financial sustainability the questions raised by the “Land of Freebies” debate may have a long-lasting effect on the development of policies and electoral strategies.
[1] KAUL MRSK and R M, ‘S.Subramaniam Balaji vs the Government of Tamil Nadu on 13 June, 2016’ (Indian Kanoon, 8 April 2013)
[2] https://www.theweek.in/theweek/cover/2022/08/27/how-freebies-boosted-tamil-nadus-economy.html
[3] Raghav Kumar, Sudarsan Padmanabhan & P. Srikant. (2023) NOTA: a strategic choice with a positive impact on Indian elections. Asian Journal of Political Science 31:3, pages 180-196.
[4] Padmanabhan S, ‘(PDF) Why Indians Vote: Reflections on Rights, Citizenship, and Democracy from a
Tamil Nadu Village’ (research gate, 13 July 2021) accessed 11 July 2024
