'Public interest': Supreme Court says plea to ban freebies by political parties will be heard by 3-judge bench

The Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to examine the issue of political parties promising and distributing freebies during election campaigns, noting that it raises important public interest concerns and should be heard by a three-judge bench [Ashwini Upadhyay v. Union of India & Ors].

The matter was mentioned before a Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi by BJP leader and petitioner Ashwini Upadhyay, who urged that the issue be taken up urgently as several State assembly elections are approaching.

CJI Kant acknowledged the concern and indicated that the case would be placed before a larger bench for detailed consideration. He said,

"It is of paramount importance and is in public interest...this has to be heard by 3 judges bench."

CJI Kant asked for the matter to be brought up again at the end of the month.

"Wait for March," he said.

Upadhyay submitted that political parties were increasingly making wide-ranging promises to attract voters. He argued that this amounted to corrupt practices and required the Court’s intervention.

“5 assembly elections are coming. Only sun and moon is left to promise. These are corrupt practices," said Upadhyay.

The plea filed by Upadhyay seeks the Central government and the Election Commission of India to issue directions to regulate election manifestos and ensure accountability for promises involving public funds.

It also raises concerns about the impact of such promises on the economy and the fairness of the electoral process.

Several political parties have opposed the plea, calling it politically motivated. While others have argued that welfare schemes and subsidies are part of a government’s responsibility to support vulnerable sections of society.

In earlier hearings, the Supreme Court had acknowledged that the issue raises complex legal and policy questions. It noted that this includes how far courts can intervene in such matters.

The Court had also flagged that its 2013 ruling in Subramaniam Balaji v. Government of Tamil Nadu, which held that manifesto promises are not corrupt practices, may need reconsideration.

Additionally, it had discussed the idea of setting up a committee to study the economic impact of such promises and to clearly define what qualifies as a freebie.

[Read Live Coverage]