'Freebies' By Political Parties: SC Refers Matter To Three-Judge Bench Citing Complexity Of The Issue
Freebies Case Supreme Court: A bench comprising CJI NV Ramana and Justices Hima Kohli and CT Ravikumar deliberated on the plea opposing promises of handouts by the political parties during polls.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday directed the listing of peitions relating to the practice of political parties promising freebies before a three-judge bench.
"Looking into the complexities of the issues involved and the prayer to overrule the judgement rendered by a two-judge bench of this court in Subramaniam Balaji, we direct listing of the set of petitions before a three-judge bench after obtaining the orders from the Chief Justice of India," a bench led by outgoing Chief Justice NV Ramana said, as quoted by news agency PTI.
The top court has listed these pleas after four weeks.
This comes after the apex court on Wednesday stated that there must be a "debate" on the "serious" issue relating to the practice of political parties promising freebies and asked why the Centre cannot call for an all-party meeting on it.
The observations by a bench comprising Chief Justice NV Ramana and Justices Hima Kohli and CT Ravikumar was deliberating on the plea opposing promises of such handouts by the parties during polls.
Until and unless there is a unanimous decision among political parties that freebies are going to destroy the economy and have to be stopped, nothing can happen as it is only political parties that would make such promises and contest elections and not individuals, the SC bench stated, as per PTI.
"….Why do not the Government of India call for an all-party meeting?" the top court said.
"There must be a debate. The issue is serious, there is no doubt about it. The question is, why do not all political parties meet and the Government of India can call for a meeting," it observed.
Senior advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for petitioner Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, recommended that a retired SC judge like former CJI RM Lodha be the chairman of the committee proposed to be constituted on this aspect.
However, CJI NV Ramana observed, "a person who retires or who is going to retire has no value in this country. That is the problem," Singh said ultimately, it is the personality and the position that one has held which makes the difference.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan said that he has filed an intervention on behalf of the NGO 'Centre for Public Interest Litigation'.
According to PTI, Prashant Bhushan argued that the NGO wants three kinds of freebies to be prohibited -- those which are discriminatory or which violate fundamental rights, those which are against public policy, and those which are rolled out immediately before the election, like in the last six months before the polls, by the ruling party.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta mentioned that there are political parties, which may not be in power in the state or the Centre, and are rolling out such promises.
"The focal point is would the voter have an atmosphere where he can take an informed decision. It is not a question of ruling or losing a party. Can you promise the moon to get elected?" Mehta said.
When the bench asked why the Union Government cannot call for an all-party meeting on the issue, the Solicitor General contended that the political parties are already there before the apex court claiming that this is their right.
"There are some political parties who think it is their fundamental right to offer freebies and have come to power by only offering freebies," the solicitor general argued, as quoted by PTI.
According to the SC bench, the biggest problem in the issue was who will head the committee to decide on freebies.
"Ultimately it is only political parties which will make promises and contest elections, not individuals. Suppose, if I contest, I may not even get ten votes," the CJI said as noted that individuals do not have much importance in the present system and that is how our democracy is.
During the hearing, the 2013 judgement delivered by a two-judge bench of the apex court in the S Subramaniam Balaji vs The Government of Tamil Nadu and others was referred before the bench and it was argued that this verdict required reconsideration.
In the 2013 judgement, the court noted that after examining and considering the parameters laid in section 123 of the Representation of People Act, it arrived at a conclusion that the promises in the election manifesto cannot be read into section 123 for declaring it to be a corrupt practice.
The bench said that it would look into that judgement and would consider constituting a three-judge bench.
While hearing the matter on Tuesday, the apex court had observed that all political parties including the BJP were in favour of freebies and due to this, a judicial attempt has been made to deal with it.
"On this issue, I can say all political parties are on one side including BJP. Everybody wants freebies. That is the reason we made an attempt," the bench had observed.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, whose assistance has been sought by the bench, had mooted the idea of setting up a panel of the statutory finance commission.
He had said as per the Fiscal Management Responsibility Act, if some freebies are given, then the benefit cannot go beyond 3 per cent.
The plea filed by Ashwini Upadhyay opposes the practice of political parties promising freebies during elections, demanding that the Election Commission invoke its powers to freeze their election symbols and cancel the parties' registration.
(With Agency Inputs)
Top Headlines
Trending News
and tablets
