Summary
Writ petitions challenged political parties' pre-election promises of 'freebies', and government benefits said to be vote-bank ploys rather than welfare measures, as harming state finances and the level playing field. The Union suggested a commission, the Election Commission cited its limited role, and intervening parties argued these were non-justiciable policy matters. The Court noted the risk that freebies may push States towards bankruptcy, while observing that not all promises are freebies, since welfare schemes reflect the Directive Principles. It framed preliminary questions on the scope of judicial intervention, whether enforceable orders could issue and whether an expert body would help. Parties also sought reconsideration of S. Subramaniam Balaji (2013), so the Court directed listing before a three-Judge Bench. Nothing was finally decided.
Issues
- What is the scope of judicial intervention regarding pre-election promises of freebies by political parties, and whether any enforceable order can be passed
- Whether a court-appointed commission or expert body would serve any purpose, and its scope, composition and powers
- Whether S. Subramaniam Balaji v. State of Tamil Nadu, holding that such promises are not corrupt practices under Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, requires reconsideration
Provisions considered
- Section 123, Representation of the People Act, 1951The correctness of S. Subramaniam Balaji, which held pre-election promises are not corrupt practices, was referred for reconsideration. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14)
Held
- Freebies may leave a State unable to provide basic amenities and push it towards bankruptcy, and they are funded by taxpayers. Not all promises are freebies, though, since welfare schemes reflect the Directive Principles and the responsibilities of a welfare State. The electorate ultimately judges parties' performance. (¶¶ 7, 9)
- Courts generally do not interfere in policy or fiscal matters. The issues need extensive hearing on preliminary questions about the scope of judicial intervention, the possibility of enforceable orders and the usefulness, scope and composition of any expert body. (¶¶ 10, 11)
- Given the complexity of the issues and the submissions that S. Subramaniam Balaji overlooked provisions of the 1951 Act and wrongly implied that Directive Principles override fundamental rights, contrary to Minerva Mills, the petitions were directed to be placed before a three-Judge Bench. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14)
Result
Directions issued; the batch of petitions was directed to be listed before a three-Judge Bench, with the orders of the Chief Justice of India, after four weeks; no final decision on the merits.