NEW DELHI:
The Supreme Court is likely to take a call on Wednesday on the need for an expert panel to examine possible regulatory mechanisms for freebies announced by political parties, their impact on the economy and their distinction from welfare schemes essential to provide livelihood to the poor, reports Dhananjay Mahapatra.
With AAP and DMK in the forefront to oppose judicial intervention on the ground that freebies and welfare measures are intertwined and are beyond the SC’s jurisdiction to scrutinise them, the apex court said the argument – “courts lack jurisdiction to interfere in a government policy decision” – is a double-edged weapon.
Poll promises part of free speech: AAP counsel to SC
CJI NV Ramana, heading a Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Hima Kohli and CT Ravikumar, said on Tuesday during a hearing on freebies announced by political parties, “Suppose tomorrow a state government decides to discontinue a welfare measure which may have provided succour to the poor and marginalized sections of the society. If discontinuance of such welfare measures is challenged in a court of law, can the judiciary decline to entertain the challenge saying it is a policy decision of the government and that the courts have no jurisdiction to examine it.”
The CJI clarified that he as a judge has immense respect for Parliament, which should debate this issue and determine appropriate legislative measures to regulate freebies, which are quite apart from welfare schemes for the poor and the marginalised.
“Our attempt was to initiate a debate as no political party is in favour of scrutiny of freebies. All of them want this. That is why we thought a debate can be initiated and a background paper for discussion in Parliament could be prepared by the expert panel after talking to all stakeholders, including the rural population and traditional professionals,” the CJI-led bench said. It posted the matter for further hearing on Wednesday.
While solicitor general Tushar Mehta maintained that mindless distribution of freebies by political parties would surely take the country on the path of economic disaster, AAP counsel A M Singhvi said the election promises were a part of free speech, which the court cannot restrict without any basis.
For petitioner Ashwini Upadhyay and others, senior advocates Vikas Singh and Vijay Hansaria said the SC had directed candidates to declare their criminal antecedents to help voters form an informed choice. “Similarly, the court must frame some pro-forma which would mandate a candidate to disclose the financial burden on exchequer arising from the freebies announced by him and his party and also reveal how the funds for freebies would be arranged for,” they said.
Mehta said someone should hear the cry of an already bleeding power sector suffering because of free electricity promises made by political parties. Senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Singhvi cited the constitutional advice under Article 38 to governments to undertake welfare measures to reduce income inequalities. Both argued that if a state indulges in financial indiscipline, the Finance Commission would reduce its revenue allocation the next year.