Authored By: Vaishnavi Bane
Thakur Ramnarayan College of Law, Mumbai University
Abstract :
The article assesses both the positive effects of well-targeted social schemes and the adverse outcomes of politically motivated giveaways – “freebies”, leading to the distortion of electoral competition, erosion of public trust, and long-term economic repercussions and parallelly explores the thin line between legitimate prosperity and politically expedient populism. It situates the debate within the broader discourse on electoral integrity, separation of powers, and responsibility, acknowledging the blurred lines between welfare schemes and electoral inducements, while also analysing the socio-economic rationale advanced in defence of such measures. This paper delves into the practice of promising and distributing freebies infringes constitutional morality, analysis the legal framework and judicial pronouncements surrounding the issue and critically evaluates the merits and pitfalls of the doctrine.
Keywords : Freebies, elections, constitutional morality, economic repercussions, populism.
Introduction :
Democracy thrives on promises—but when these promises mutate into unsustainable freebies, the core foundation of constitutional governance trembles. In India, electoral politics has increasingly been dominated by the culture of distributing goods, subsidies, and services as immediate gratifications to voters.
The genealogy of freebies in Indian politics lies in the broader trajectory of populism. While welfare measures grounded in the Directive Principles of State Policy – [(1)] The State shall strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing and protecting as effectively as it may a social order in which justice, social, economic and political, shall inform all the institutions of the national life.¹. – were originally intended to remedy historic inequalities and uplift the marginalized, competitive populism gradually transformed welfare into electoral bargaining . The freebie debate is not merely economic but profoundly constitutional. When governments prioritize fiscal imprudence to appease voters, they risk violating principles of equality, fairness, and responsible governance. More importantly, the normalization of freebies challenges the very idea of informed consent in a democracy: can a choice made under the lure of material inducements truly be called free?
Freebies may appear as instruments of immediate welfare but their economic consequences often burden the exchequer with unsustainable liabilities. States competing in populist politics tend to prioritize short-term electoral gains, governments risk undermining the stability of public finance. Excessive allocation of resources to politically motivated giveaways reduces the space available for essential investments in health, education, and infrastructure—sectors that form the backbone of sustainable development.
Constitutional and Economic Concerns :
Does the practice of announcing pre-election freebies undermine the principle of constitutional morality? The Constitution envisages governance rooted in equality, justice, and responsible statecraft, yet the unchecked allure of electoral promises risks reducing democracy into a “market of votes” rather than a system of accountable governance.
Schemes generating long-term fiscal burdens, distort budgetary priorities, and contribute to rising debt, thereby jeopardizing economic stability and development goals.
Compromising the autonomy of voters in exercising free and fair choice? When elections are influenced by material incentives rather than informed policy debate, it threatens the sanctity of democratic participation and raises concerns about the very integrity of India’s electoral democracy.
State’s persistent indulgence in money distribution schemes—ranging from farm loan waivers to cash transfers – offering short-term relief but paralysing long-term growth—by draining state revenues, disincentivizing productivity, and fostering a dependency culture that ultimately cripples India’s developmental trajectory?
Examples :
Women-centric cash schemes in states – Source ²
Legal Framework :
Representation of the People Act, 1951
Section 123(1) & (2): Any promise of gifts or financial benefit to influence voters can be considered a corrupt practice.³
Limits the use of freebies during election campaigns.
b) Model Code of Conduct (MCC) – Issued by the Election Commission Prohibits political parties from announcing or distributing new schemes or freebies during the election period.⁴
Case Laws and Judgements :
1) Parashar Narayan Sharma v. Union of India (2022)⁵
Background:
A PIL challenging cash transfers and other benefits given by political parties during elections.
The petitioner claimed that such actions amounted to bribery and were corrupt practices under Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.⁵
Judgement :
Delhi High Court recognized the potential for misuse of freebies as election inducements. Directed closer scrutiny of schemes announced close to elections.
Emphasized transparency and fairness in electoral promises.
Key takeaway: Timing and intention behind freebies are crucial in determining legality.⁵
2) Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India (2022–present)⁶
Background:
A PIL filed by Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay.
Challenge: Political parties offering “irrational freebies” to voters during elections (like free laptops, TVs, or cash transfers).⁶
Judgment/Current Status:
The Supreme Court has acknowledged the issue and is deliberating on whether the Election Commission can regulate or prohibit such freebies.
Key takeaway: Freebies can be legally challenged if they are given to influence voter choice rather than as genuine welfare measures.⁶
Balanced Analysis : Pros and Cons of the Freebie Doctrine
Pros:
Poverty Alleviation and Social Welfare: Freebies can help reduce poverty by directly supporting the poor and government schemes providing essential goods and services, such as education, healthcare, nutrition, and subsidized utilities, especially for economically weaker sections and vulnerable groups.
Improved access to services: Targeted benefits, such as free laptops, free school uniforms, bicycles can reduce barriers to education, digital literacy, and provide better access to public services to the people.
Constitutionally Support: Directive Principles promotes social justice and Art.47 (improving nutrition and standard of living) provide legal backing for welfare schemes and public benefits.
Balancing development gaps: Help bridge historical gaps in development, especially in regionns or sectors that have lagged in infrastructure or services.
Legal Backing for Genuine Welfare: Courts, such as in Subramaniam Balaji v. Tamil Nadu (2013), have upheld freebies when implemented as legitimate welfare measures, not for political gain.⁷
Cons:
Economic Burden on State: Large-scale money distribution schemes may strain state budgets, increase deficits.
Short-Term Impact: Freebies often provide immediate benefits but may not ensure sustainable social or economic growth if not accompanied by structural reforms. Over-reliance on freebies may reduce incentives for self-reliance and long-term economic development.
Losses for public enterprises and revenue: Excessive subsidies like free electricity have resulted in persistent losses for state-owned companies and contributed to low tax realization compromising long-term sustainability.
Vote-Buying and Manipulation: Offering freebies close to elections can be seen as an unethical attempt to influence voters rather than empower them and use of public resources for political gains undermines the principles of fairness, transparency, and accountability in governance.
Distorts Political Competition: Wealthier parties can offer more freebies, creating an unfair advantage and undermining level electoral competition.
Reforms / Suggestions :
Empowered Election Commission and Independent Oversight: Strengthen the Election Commission’s authority to review and regulate election manifestos and freebies distribution during their campaigns. Play more active role in in framing electoral guidelines and norms.
Legislative policies and measures: Calls for amending election laws to explicitly prohibit irrational freebies or link them to legal consequences.
Timing Restrictions: Prohibit the announcement or distribution of new welfare schemes close to elections to prevent misuse.
Evaluation and Accountability: Introduce periodic audits and impact assessments to ensure effectiveness of welfare schemes.
Citizen Participation: Encourage public feedback and grievance redressal to improve scheme delivery and fairness.
Voter Awareness: Educating the public about the difference between genuine welfare schemes and irrational schemes and to demand accountability from their leaders. Transparency Mechanisms: Require public disclosure of beneficiaries, budget allocations, and scheme objectives.
The focus should shift from blanket freebies to targeted welfare measures that truly provide assistance to the needy, promoting capacity-building rather than dependency. Targeted Implementation: Ensure freebies reach genuinely disadvantaged groups through proper identification and monitoring
Conclusion:
The phenomenon of freebie culture in India is a complex and multifaceted issue with profound implications for the country’s economic health, democratic integrity, and social fabric, sustainable progress cannot be built on ephemeral vote-winning schemes. Freebies, if designed as thoughtful welfare measures targeted at genuine needs, can empower marginalized communities and bridge developmental gaps. However, when they morph into populist handouts aimed solely at electoral gains, they risk fostering dependency, distorting democratic processes, and draining public resources meant for long-term nation-building.
However, the ethical and moral dimensions cannot be ignored: excessive or strategically timed freebies risk fostering dependency, undermining merit, and eroding public trust. To safeguard democracy, it is imperative to adopt clear legal frameworks, ensure transparency, strengthen oversight, and implement welfare programs responsibly.
Ultimately, the freebie doctrine must evolve from short-term populism to a principled governance framework that harmonizes welfare imperatives with economic prudence and democratic ethics.
Reference(S):
1)Constitution of India, 1950, India Const. https://legislative.gov.in/constitution-of-india. Art. 38, India Const. (Promote welfare of the people)
Art. 39, India Const. (Certain principles of policy, like equal distribution of wealth, adequate means of livelihood)
Art. 47, India Const. (Duty of the State to raise nutrition, standard of living, and public health)
2) https://www.livemint.com
3) https://legislative.gov.in/actsofparliamentfromtheyear/representation-people-act-1951. 4) Model Code of Conduct for the Guidance of Political Parties and Candidates (2024), https://eci.gov.in/mcc/
5) Parashar Narayan Sharma & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (Delhi High Ct. May 17, 2022) (WP (C) No. 1126 of 2020)
6) Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 265 of 2022, Supreme Court of India (pending)
7) S. Subramaniam Balaji v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2013) 9 SCC 659.
¹ India Const. art. 38 renumbered as cl. (1) thereof by the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, s. 9 (w.e.f. 20-6-1979) India Const. Part IV (arts. 36–51)
² Sharmila Bhadoria, A Look at Women-Centric Cash Schemes in States, from Odisha’s Subhadra Yojana to Madhya Pradesh’s Ladli Behna Yojana, MINT (Sept. 20, 2024), https://www.livemint.com/news/india/a-look-at women-centric-cash-schemes-in-states-from-odisha-s-subhadra-yojana-to-madhya-pradesh-s-ladli-behna yojana-11726801411372.html.
³ Representation of the People Act, 1951, § 123: Representation of the People Act, 1951, § 123 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/70252546/.
⁴ Model Code of Conduct: Election Commission of India, Model Code of Conduct, https://www.eci.gov.in/mcc.
⁵ Parashar Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 123 of 2022, Delhi High Court (May 17, 2022)
⁶Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 265 of 2022, Supreme Court of India (pending)
⁷ S. Subramaniam Balaji v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2013) 9 SCC 659.
