Editorial . . . . .
Freebies, political parties make pledges to provide free energy and water, monthly allowances for women, daily wage workers, and jobless people, as well as electronic devices like computers and smartphones. In order to guarantee the public’s vote, states/UTs have developed a tradition of providing free gifts, whether it be in the form of loan forgiveness or free power, bicycles, laptops, TVs, and other items.
It’s a requirement of the Indian electoral process and a sure-fire technique for any ruling administration to win over voters. The distribution of gifts to the janta is nothing unusual, and we anticipate their arrival each time the polling bell rings. The promise and delivery of freebies by political parties during election season, however, was deemed “a major concern” by the Supreme Court on Thursday because the economy is losing money as a result. Additionally, the taxpayers have the right to question it. Ashwini Upadhyay, a lawyer, filed a PIL before the Supreme Court asking for a prohibition on political parties using promises of “freebies” to entice voters in the run-up to elections. The application demanded that measures be established to control electoral statements and hold political parties responsible for their promises therein. The Supreme Court further said that an apex body with representatives from the Niti Aayog, Finance Commission, the ruling and opposition parties, the RBI, and other stakeholders is required to make recommendations on how to regulate gifts given out by political parties during campaigns. The PIL asks the Electoral Commission to use its authority to revoke the registration of parties that provide such freebies and to freeze their use of election symbols. The Aam Aadmi Party, however, had opposed the PIL, claiming that it was advancing a political agenda and that programmes for the socio-economic wellbeing of the deserving and downtrodden masses could not be referred to as “freebies.” AAP lawyers argued against the petition seeking to take action against political parties by arguing that welfare policies were political agreements between parties and the public and that informed voting is possible. Before giving out “irrational freebies,” an economic effect analysis is required, according to a submission made in the PIL. Senior attorney Vijay Hansaria claimed on behalf of the petitioner that the two most important economic organizations in the nation have expressed concern about the long-term effects of governments’ distribution of freebies without competent fiscal and budgetary management. It is stated that state governments have kept taking out loans even after the loan from the Indian government failed to comply with Articles 293(3) and (4). The comments claimed that in order to offer financial facilities to the states, strict enforcement of these restrictions and the development of a “system of credit rating” were required. The Election Commission, however, had a different perspective on this. In a calamity or pandemic, things that are “freebies” in ordinary times can save lives, the Supreme Court was informed. They are not defined precisely by law. What may be unreasonable or a freebie for one group of people may be rational and necessary for another, the report noted. Can the behaviour of political parties making “irrational freebie” promises, particularly during election season, to win votes be deemed unlawful and outlawed? Making obnoxious promises is a standard element of the Indian electoral process. Compared to actual post-election implementation, this gains them greater attention and mileage. And in fact, no political party will resist giving away things for free. Most definitely not the janta. The long-term cost of freebies to the economy, the quality of life, and social cohesion is what matters, not how inexpensive they are today. Instead, we must aim for a race to efficiency through democratic and sanguine federalist laboratories, where states exercise their power to enact novel ideas and answers to universal issues that other states can adopt. Surely, certain spending decisions made in response to populist pressure or with elections in mind may be suspect. However, considering that inequality has increased over the past 30 years, providing some sort of relief to the populace in the form of subsidies may not only be justified but really required for the economy to maintain its upward trajectory.