[Freebies by political parties] Supreme Court orders listing of case before 3-judge bench; will re-examine Subramaniam Balaji ruling

The Supreme Court on Friday ordered that the plea against freebies promised by political parties before elections, needs to be heard by a 3-judge bench in view of the complexity of the issue [Ashwini Upadhyay vs Union of India and ors]..A Bench led by outgoing Chief Justice of India (CJI) NV Ramana and Justices Hima Kohli and CT Ravikumar, said that the top court's 2013 judgment in Subramaniam Balaji v. Govt. of Tamil Nadu might need reconsideration."We direct listing of the case before a three judge bench as formulated by the CJI. This is looking at the complexity of the case and a need to reconsider the Subramaniam Balaji judgment," the Court said in its order.The Court also noted in its order the following issues raised by various parties which might require consideration by the Court:- What is scope of judicial intervention? - Can court pass any enforceable order? - What should be the composition of the committee? - Whether Subramaniam Balaji v. Govt of Tamil Nadu judgment needs reconsideration?.The public interest litigation (PIL) filed by BJP leader Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay has sought directions to the Central government and the Election Commission to take steps to regulate poll manifestos of political parties and to parties accountable for promises made in such manifestos.The plea by Upadhyay has opposed the practice of political parties giving/promising freebies to voters.Up until now, various political parties and leaders have opposed the plea. The Aam Aadmi Party has stated that the plea by BJP leader Ashwini Upadhyay is a "political interest litigation."Congress leader Dr. Jaya Thakur has submitted that it is the duty of the government to uplift weaker sections of the society and framing schemes, and providing subsidies for the same is the duty of ruling parties that run the government.The Supreme Court had earlier taken an unfavourable view of the comments made by the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) party representative on television debates regarding the top court hearing the case on freebies.Tamil Nadu Finance Minister Palanivel Thiagarajan had said on a TV debate that there was no Constitutional basis for courts to enter into the domain of economic policy..The Court had indicated on August 24 that the case will be listed before a different Bench.During that hearing, in line with previous suggestions for the formation of a committee to deliberate on the issue, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh had suggested,"I was suggesting a retired Supreme Court judge head the committee like Justice Lodha..."Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had replied,"I think a Constitutional body should head the committee to deliberate."CJI Ramana had then asked,"Why doesn't the Government of India form a committee to study this issue?"SG Mehta replied that the Central government will help in every way, and that the committee can submit a report on the issue in three months.Questioning what can be defined as a freebie, Senior Advocate Arvind Datar, appearing for the Election Commission, asked,"If something is there in manifesto, can it be called a freebie? There is enough material available to judge the economic impact of freebies."CJI Ramana went on to observe,"Who is in opposition today can come into power tomorrow and they will have to manage this. So things like freebies etc which can destroy the economy. It has to be looked at and I just cannot pass a mandamus. Thus, there needs to be a debate.".Singh had then submitted that the Supreme Court's 2013 judgment in Subramanian Balaji v. Govt of Tamil Nadu needs to be reconsidered. In that judgment, the Court had held that promises made by political parties in the election manifesto would not amount to ‘corrupt practices’ as per Section 123 of the Representation of People Act.It was further held that the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) cannot dictate how governments spend their money, and that the Court cannot make guidelines or laws on what election promises should be allowed. .[Follow our coverage of today's hearing]