The recent filing of a petition in the Supreme Court seeking alterations to India’s Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968 has stirred debate about the practice of political parties offering “irrational freebies” in order to secure votes. The petition, which argues that such practices hinder democratic values and violate the spirit of the Constitution, comes amid growing concerns about the influence of such incentives in electoral races.
The Issue of Freebies in Indian Politics
Political parties in India have increasingly used the promise of free goods and services as a strategy to win elections. Such perks can include free electricity and water supply, monthly allowances for unemployed individuals or daily wage workers, or even gadgets like laptops and smartphones. While these offers may secure the vote of some individuals, critics argue that they pose serious ethical and economic issues.
About the Newly-Filed Petition
The recently-filed petition argues that such “irrational freebies” run counter to the Election Commission of India (ECI)’s principles for free and fair elections. Promises to provide private goods or services from public funds are said to violate several key articles of the Constitution.
The petitioner has asked the Supreme Court to instruct the ECI to add a condition to the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968. This would ensure that “a political party shall not promise or distribute irrational freebies from the public fund before the election”.
Arguments for Freebies
Supporters of freebies argue that they are essential for meeting the expectations of voters, particularly in regions with varying levels of development. Providing free goods and services can help to address economic disparities and uplift those suffering from poverty, helping to meet the immediate needs of the populace.
Economic and Legal Consequences of Freebies
Despite their potential benefits, freebies can place a significant economic burden on state and national budgets. Critics argue that they undermine free and fair elections by unduly influencing voters and disturbing the level playing field of electoral competition. The distribution of private goods or services from public funds has also been deemed unconstitutional by Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court, in the case of S Subramaniam Balaji vs Government of Tamil Nadu 2013, noted that unrealistic promises and freebies cause serious disruption to fair elections. Yet, the current lack of laws governing election manifesto content means such practices cannot be stopped if they are funded through legal channels.
A Way Forward
Efforts should be made to clarify and effectively implement political parties’ economic policies or development models. Any offering of subsidies or freebies should be carefully considered and easily accommodated within state budgets.
Understanding the economic implications of freebies and their connection to taxpayer money is key, as is differentiating between subsidies (justified, specific benefits arising out of demands) and freebies.
Lastly, raising public awareness about the potential downsides of selling votes for freebies could foster greater electoral responsibility and ensure the selection of competent leaders.
