Pre-Poll Freebies an ‘Important Matter’: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Wednesday said that the growing practice of announcing freebies ahead of elections is an “important matter” that needs serious consideration, as it agreed to prioritise hearing petitions challenging an earlier ruling that held such promises do not amount to bribery.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi made the observation while agreeing to give early listing to petitions seeking a recall of the 2013 Supreme Court judgment, which had ruled that distributing or promising freebies during elections does not fall under the definition of bribery.

“This is a very important matter,” the bench observed, drawing a clear distinction between welfare measures and the distribution of state resources purely to influence voters. The court noted that while governments are free to design policies for public welfare, there must be a difference between genuine welfare schemes and pre-election inducements.

The issue was raised by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, who argued that Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which defines “bribery” as a corrupt practice, does not explicitly include political freebies. He told the court that political parties routinely promise items such as cash, gold chains, televisions and even liquor to attract voters, placing a heavy burden on public finances.

Upadhyay also pointed out that India’s total national debt has crossed Rs 200 lakh crore, even as political parties continue to make lavish promises ahead of elections. He argued that such practices misuse public funds and distort the electoral process.

During the hearing, the bench said that the state certainly has the right to introduce welfare measures such as free education or medical facilities, but questioned whether unchecked spending on freebies was justified. The judges remarked that if governments claim to have surplus funds, priority should be given to long-term development needs like hospitals, roads and infrastructure.

The Supreme Court’s observations signal a renewed debate on the fine line between welfare policies and electoral inducements, a subject that has gained prominence amid frequent elections and rising fiscal pressures.

Also Read: Supreme Court Takes Suo Motu Cognisance of 'Aravalli Hills' Definition Dispute, Stays Own Order