SC Bench’s red line on freebies: What the top court has said earlier

The Court, however, replied that the counsel for the Delhi government had informed that the shelters were in a dilapidated state. Justice Gavai added that an affidavit filed in the matter talks about the facilities to be provided and remarked, “”We quite appreciate your concern for them but would it not be better to make them a part of the mainstream of society and permit them to contribute to the development of the nation?” the bench asked.

Gavai added: “So, rather than promoting them to be a part of the mainstream of society by contributing to the development of the nation, are we not creating a class of parasites?”

“Unfortunately, because of these freebies, which come on the anvil of the elections… some Ladli Behen and some other scheme, people are not willing to work,” Justice Gavai said.

Earlier, while hearing a plea on the question of salaries and pensions of judicial officers in January, the Supreme Court spoke on freebies.

Mentioning promises being made ahead of the Delhi Assembly polls, the same Bench of Justices Gavai and Masih cited the Ladli Behna Yojana in Maharashtra as well as promises made leading up to the Delhi Assembly polls.

“States have all the money for people who don’t do any work. When we talk about financial constraints, we also have to look at this. Come elections, you declare Ladli Behna and other new schemes where you pay fixed amounts. In Delhi, we have announcements now from some party or the other saying they will pay 2,500 if they come to power,” Justice Gavai said.

The freebie issue has come up in the Supreme Court earlier as well through petitions. Including after Prime Minister Narendra Modi said in 2022 that attempts were “being made to collect votes by distributing free revdis (sweets)”. “This revdi culture is very dangerous for the development of the country,” he said.

Soon after, advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay filed a PIL challenging the practice of offering “irrational freebies”.

The Aam Aadmi Party subsequently filed a petition opposing Upadhyay’s PIL, arguing that their welfare schemes were not freebies.

Hearing the matter, then Chief Justice of India N V Ramana said it was important to reconsider the top court’s 2013 judgment in S Subramaniam Balaji vs State of Tamil Nadu. Back in July 2013, a two-judge Bench in the case had held that the “state distributing largesse in the form of distribution of colour TVs, laptops, etc. to eligible and deserving persons is directly related to the Directive Principles of the State Policy” and warrants no interference by the Court.

Ramana also highlighted the need to differentiate between a promise made by a politician as a ‘freebie’ and a ‘welfare scheme’.

On August 26 2022, the Supreme Court referred petitions seeking a ban on the freebies to a three-judge Bench, which it said would look into the 2013 judgement in the S Subramaniam Balaji case.

In August 2024, a Supreme Court Bench headed by then chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud Upadhyay’s PIL. The case is still pending.