JOIN USThe Supreme Court's proposal to set up an expert committee to examine the issue of freebies offered by governments or announced by political parties raises many questions. The decision was taken while hearing a PIL seeking a ban on parties offering freebies to woo voters. The central government has told the court to lay down guidelines to regulate freebies till legislative measures are put in place. A bench led by Chief Justice of India N V Ramana has proposed the setting up of a committee with representatives of the central and state governments, political parties and bodies and institutions like the RBI and the Finance Commission to look into the issue. The Election Commission has refused to be a part of the committee on grounds of propriety. The court will hear the matter again next week.
The PIL and some statements in the public realm have brought the issue into focus. But there is a need for more clarity on the matter. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has criticised the “culture of revadi”, meaning freebies, which hurts public finance. But the ‘freebie’ is yet to be defined. Welfare measures, subsidies, concessions and sops can all be called freebies, depending on the context. A freebie in one state may not be so in another. A television or a grinding machine may be considered a luxury good or a necessary item. Bicycles, given away by the Bihar government, empowered many girls and promoted their education.
Parties disapprove of freebies offered by their rival parties and consider their own freebies as welfare measures. The Prime Minister who criticised freebies has himself offered them. Freebies were an important factor in the BJP’s victory in the recent UP Assembly elections. Even after the Prime Minister made the statement, the Gujarat government announced some measures with the coming state Assembly elections in view. It is difficult to distinguish between freebies and welfare measures in many situations. Who is to make the judgement? Electoral promises are matters between political parties and the voters. The proposed role of bodies like the RBI, whose remit is monetary, not fiscal, policy, in the matter may well be questioned. The Supreme Court has itself in the past ruled that the distribution of ‘freebies’ like TV sets would not be illegal if the legislature cleared it. The CJI, too, has pointed out that a balance between democracy and welfare is needed. It is a complex matter and a thorough debate is needed on the issues involved. While public finances are involved, the issue needs to be seen basically as a political issue between the government and citizens or between political parties and voters. Discussions on freebies and any attempt to regulate them should be within that framework.