Freebie culture makes people lazy, vitiates purity of elections, must be viewed as a "corrupt practice: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court on Wednesday expressed strong opinions against the freebie culture indulged in by political parties during election season and called for amending the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951, so that freebies offered by political parties are also viewed as a "corrupt practice" under Section 123. .The Bench of Justices N Kirubakaran and B Pugalendhi has criticised both political parties who dole out such promises as well as the voters who elect such parties into power, observing,"It is stated that every candidate has to shell out about Rs.20 crores in the election to an assembly constituency, as many of the people have become corrupt by selling their votes for one or a few thousands, Briyani and Quarter bottle. It is the stark reality. If that is so, how could the people expect good leaders? Do people who sell their votes, have any moral right to question their leaders?".Freebies are making people lazy and dampening the working culture, the Court said. The Court remarked that this could also be tied to the rise in the engagement of migrant labour.."It is raining freebies for Tamil Nadu Assembly elections ... In the process, the honest tax payer is made a mute spectator of these expenditure by the Government. Consequently, even for any normal work no force is available in Tamil Nadu...Most of the North Indian workers are doing agriculture work and working in hotels, industries, shops, saloons, etc. in Tamil Nadu", reads the order. .It would not be surprising to see migrant workers become property owners in due course of time "and it may be the only achievement, probably, the political parties have attained through election promises by providing freebies for the past 20 years", the Bench added..The Court noted that while each political party tries to undo the other in terms of populist promises, the populace would better be served if the promises made concerned the improvement of living standards, clean governance and infrastructure. However, the election promises made by political parties are aimed at clinching power, the Court said. ."Unfortunately, freebies are not connected with job creation, development, or agriculture. Voters are lured to cast votes in their favour by these magical promises. Once in 5 years, this tamasha is being continued for decades together. Promises have always remained as promises. Most of them except freebies are not implemented", the Court further commented..The Court also observed that political parties must be barred from giving election promises that would add to the burden of the public exchequer. "Otherwise, for the sake of finance, the State has to increase the number of liquor shops", the Bench remarked. .On amending law to view Freebies as a "corrupt practice".The Court has recalled that in S Subramaniam Balaji v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, the Supreme Court had once held that promises made in election manifestos cannot be construed as “corrupt practice.” .However, the High Court opined that there should be an external agency, which examines all election manifestos to weed out the unreasonable and unexecutable ones. ."Definitely, that will go a long way to curtail the political parties from making promises of moon or star. Unless some mechanism is put into place, the political party would try to buy out the voters by hook or crook as their aim is only to ascend to power", the Court said. .The Court also acknowledged that the Representation of the People's Act, 1950 does not presently penalise political parties for handing out freebies. The Bench, however, opined that this omission may have been only because the policymakers at the time did not forsee the lows to which political parties would stoop. .The High Court has gone on to comment that once the Supreme Court has also opined that freebies vitiate the purity of elections by influencing voters, it should be deemed a "corrupt practice"."Whether it is done by an individual or by a party, it is definitely a bribery or corrupt practice. Our democracy has stooped down to such a level that time has come to bring the political parties which offer freebies to influence the voters for picking up votes also, within the scope of Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act", the Court said. .The Court made these observations while dealing with a petition for de-reserving the Vasudevanallur Legislative Assembly constituency, from where only Scheduled Caste (SC) candidates can presently contest the Legislative Assembly elections. .While the prayers made for dereservation was dismissed in view of provisions of the Delimitation Act, 2002, the case has been kept pending and various authorities have been asked to report to the Court on various broader queries, including:Whether the Central Government has taken any steps to bring legislation covering the issue of political manifestos, especially freebies, following the Judgment of the Supreme Court in SSubramaniam Balaji v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others?In how many elections the Election Commission has vetted the election manifestos of the political parties as per the dictum of the Supreme Court in the case of S Subramaniam Balaji v. State of Tamil Nadu? If so, which are all the political parties which have submitted their election manifestos for vetting during elections after 2014? What are the actions taken against those political parties, which have not followed the dictum of the Supreme Court to tender the manifestos for vetting before the Election Commission? In how many manifestos of the political parties, the Election Commission has made objections regarding the statements or promises made? Whether based on the objections such disputed or controversial promises have been deleted by political parties?Why not political parties be made liable to pay at least 10% of the money involved for the implementation of election promises made by them after they come to power to infuse a sense of responsibility to the political parties?Why not the authorities sensitize the political parties not to make any unreasonable and unfair promises, which, if implemented would drain the public exchequer unnecessarily /unreasonably?Why not the authorities prohibit the political parties from giving social security schemes which are capable of shattering work culture and making people lazy?Whether the political parties give in the manifestos itself about the political promises and provision for resources available, in case if they come to power along with experts opinion? Why not the authorities direct the political parties to make the political promise, especially, with regard to the freebies in accordance with the resources of the State?Why not the authorities monitor and verify as to whether the election promises are complied with during the tenure of the political party which is elected to form the Government?Why not the authorities prohibit the political parties from making any promises, which cannot be implemented by the State Government, as they are beyond the powers of state Governments. i.e., waiver of loans given by the nationalized bank, etc.?Whether the Authorities have got details about the political promises, which have been implemented by the political parties when they came to power at least in the past 4 elections to Legislative Assemblies and Parliament elections?How much was spent by the respective Government, especially, Tamil Nadu to translate the election promises into reality by giving the details thereof (from 2001 election onwards)?Why not election commission of India de-recognize those election parties, who fail to implement their political promises based on which the voters are lured and the parties are elected to form the Government?When will the Union Government bring an amendment of Section 123 of Representation of People's Act 1952, to include “political parties” which could be charged for “corrupt practices”?.Assistant Solicitor General Victora Gowri has taken notice in the matter for the Union Ministries of Parliamentary Affairs and Social Justice and Empowerment. Advocate Niranjan Rajagopal took notice on behalf of the Election Commission of India. .Special Government Pleader, Muthu Geetheiyan took notes for the Tamil Nadu Election Commission, whereas Additional Advocate General Chella Pandian took notice for the Tirunelveli District Collectorate. Advocate V Raju Rufus appeared for the petitioner. .The matter will be taken up next on April 26.[Read the order]