New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday sought response from poll-bound states Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan on a plea questioning the distribution of pre-poll freebies from the state exchequer at a time when they are grappling with huge debt. Have been.
A bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjay Y Chandrachud also sought response from the Center and the Election Commission of India (ECI) and said all kinds of promises are made before the elections over which the courts have little control. .
Since the issue is already pending before the top court in a petition filed by Delhi Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, the bench, also comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Mishra, dismissed the present petition on Upadhyay’s plea. Instructed to listen with. ,
The court was hearing a petition filed by Bhattulal Jain, a resident of Madhya Pradesh, seeking a declaration from the court that such promises of benefits or distribution of cash benefits to woo voters amounts to “bribery” and “undue influence.” “, which are punishable. Offenses under sections 171B and 171C of the Indian Penal Code. He further sought to direct the state authorities not to misuse the Consolidated Fund of India in the name of public purpose.
Dealing with the prayers, CJI Chandrachud remarked: “Before elections, all kinds of promises are made. There can be no control over this.”
The bench also told the petitioner that he should approach the High Court as the petition only appeared to seek directions against the Madhya Pradesh government.
Advocate Tripurari Ray, who appeared along with advocate Varun Thakur on behalf of the petitioner, told the court that in the petition, a direction has also been sought against Rajasthan. He prepared data from the Reserve Bank of India on outstanding loan figures in Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan, which crossed ₹3.78 lakh crore and ₹5.37 lakh crore, respectively, as of March 31 this year.
“Nothing could be more cruel than a government handing out cash before an election,” Ray said.
Wondering where the government intends to get the money to finance the freebies, the petitioner further argued, “It all starts just six months before the elections are to be held. “Ultimately, the burden is on us, the taxpayers.”
In June, the MP government launched the Laadli Behna Yojana, under which the state promised to give ₹1,000 per month to all married women (including divorcees and widows), with the amount gradually increasing to ₹3,000. The Rajasthan government had earlier this year announced free electricity up to 100 units and free smartphones along with subsidy on LPG cylinders to women.
“No government can announce free electricity, free water or loan waiver without the approval of the Assembly…Governments should submit blueprints and seek approval from the Assembly before announcing such projects,” the petition said. “Since the money belongs to the taxpayers, they should have the right to monitor its use.”
The court gave four weeks to both the states along with the Center and the ECI to file their responses and directed that the case be heard along with Upadhyay’s petition along with a batch of petitions, which will be listed before a three-judge bench. Was instructed to do. Did not come for hearing since November last year.
In that set of petitions, the court was asked to consider whether such pre-poll promises impede the level playing field during elections. Another issue that arose in the petitions was with regard to such promises made with the aim of wooing votes without regard to the financial impact on the state economy.
In one of the orders passed in the pending petitions on August 26 last year, the court had framed some preliminary questions to find out whether judicial intervention is permissible in such matters falling within the policy area of the state, in the form of any enforceable order. and the possibility of having an expert body to suggest measures to curb such practices.
When these cases came up for hearing, a demand was raised by the petitioners to reconsider the apex court’s 2013 judgment in the case of S. Subramaniam Balaji vs. Tamil Nadu, which had held that pre-poll promises do not amount to corrupt practices which can lead to electioneering. There is a basis for declaring it illegal. , Under Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act.
In that order, the court, while leaving the matter to be decided by a three-judge bench, also said, “Freebies can create a situation in which the State Government cannot provide basic amenities due to paucity of funds and the State Will be pushed towards impending doom.” Bankruptcy. At the same time, we must remember that such freebies are given only to boost the party’s popularity and electoral prospects using taxpayers’ money.
