Key Points
- Hearing Scheduled: A bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant has agreed to hear the PIL in March, following a request for an urgent listing.
- Severe Penalties Sought: The petition demands the cancellation of registration or the seizure of election symbols for parties making unsustainable financial promises.
- Sanctity of Elections: Arguments suggest that state-funded freebies create an uneven playing field and unduly influence voters, violating the spirit of the Constitution.
- Economic Impact: The court previously noted that freebie budgets in some states have exceeded regular developmental budgets, risking fiscal insolvency.
The Supreme Court of India has taken a decisive step toward addressing the controversial practice of “irrational freebies,” agreeing to hear a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in March 2026. The matter, which has significant implications for the Indian electoral system and state finances, was brought before a bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi.
The petitioner, advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, urged the court to expedite the matter, noting that notices had already been issued to the Central Government and the Election Commission of India (ECI) back in 2022. The CJI acknowledged the gravity of the issue, describing it as “important,” and instructed the petitioner to mention the matter again for formal listing next month.
The “Sun and Moon” Argument
During the proceedings, Upadhyay argued that political parties have reached a stage where they “promise everything except the sun and the moon” during election cycles. He contended that such promises, funded by the public exchequer, are tantamount to a corrupt practice. The PIL asserts that these unethical commitments are essentially a form of bribery, using taxpayer money to secure power rather than addressing long-term developmental needs.
The petition specifically targets promises that are not linked to any productive infrastructure or welfare scheme, arguing that they destroy the level playing field necessary for a healthy democracy. By offering immediate material gain, larger parties can effectively “buy” votes, leaving smaller or newer political entities at a significant disadvantage.
Historical Context and Fiscal Concerns
The roots of this legal battle date back to January 25, 2022, when then-CJI NV Ramana first issued notices to the Centre and the ECI. At that time, the bench expressed deep concern over the fiscal impact of these promises. The court had observed that in several instances, the projected cost of election freebies actually exceeded the state’s regular annual budget, pushing various state governments toward the brink of financial collapse.
The current PIL urges the court to declare that promising irrational freebies from the public exchequer is a violation of the Constitution. It argues that such practices not only influence voters through undue pressure but also hurt the overall sanctity of the electoral process.
Demand for Legislative Action
Beyond judicial intervention, the petition calls for the Central Government to enact a specific law to curb this practice. The proposed legislation would empower the Election Commission to take strict action, including de-registering parties that fail to provide a clear financial roadmap for their promises.
The legal community and economic experts have closely watched this case, as it balances the rights of political parties to propose welfare schemes against the necessity of maintaining fiscal discipline. As the Supreme Court prepares for the March hearing, the focus will be on defining the line between “legitimate welfare” and “irrational freebies,” a distinction that could redefine Indian electioneering for years to come.
