By Express News Service
The Supreme Court on Friday directed the listing of the petitions seeking a ban on political parties for distributing freebies before the three-judge bench.
In a first, the apex court live-streamed the proceedings of the outgoing Chief Justice NV Ramana’s last day. However, the matter will be heard after four weeks.
A bench headed by Chief Justice NV Ramana said it was argued before it that the 2013 judgement delivered by a two-judge bench of the apex court in the matter of S Subramaniam Balaji vs The Government of Tamil Nadu and others required reconsideration.
The bench headed by CJI NV Ramana also comprising Justices Hima Kohli and CT Ravikumar issued directions in the plea filed by BJP leader Ashwini Upadhyay seeking to direct the Election Commission of India to restrain political parties from disturbing freebies during elections.
On Wednesday, the bench had reiterated the need for a debate to address the issue related to the distribution of freebies by political parties and had asked the Centre as to why it cannot call for all party meetings to deliberate on the same.
On Tuesday the court said that there was a need to decide whether a “promise” qualified as a welfare measure or a freebie. Citing an example of a shaving kit for a barber, bicycle for a student, equipment for a toddy tapper or iron for a washer man changing their lifestyle or uplifting them, the bench said what may seem like freebies to the urban population might provide welfare to rural poor.
ALSO READ | In a first, live steaming in Supreme Court today
CJI opined that all political parties in freebies were on one side and everyone wanted freebies to continue. Laying emphasis on the same, Ramana said that this was the reason why it had opined for the constitution of a neutral body comprising various stakeholders to give suggestions for addressing the freebies issue.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal who was invited by the bench in his capacity as a parliamentarian had contended that an “extensive debate” was needed before a decision could be taken on what is to be done. He had also suggested for the Finance Commission look into the problem.
SG Tushar Mehta said, “If you’re financing in a manner that’s destroying the economy, is that permissible?” Mehta had also said that the distribution of freebies by political parties resulted in the creation of an atmosphere that affected the informed choice of a voter. Mehta also submitted before the bench a list of autonomous institutions from whom the Court could seek a response by asking them to give their suggestions.
Asserting that the distribution of freebies created an unlevel playing field, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh for Upadhyay expressed his concern for the maintenance of financial discipline. He also said that the parties should disclose the source from where funds were being utilised for providing freebies.
For the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), Senior Advocate AM Singhvi said that the court shouldn’t make preparations in advance for Parliament debate on the issue.
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan also for Upadhyay had submitted that it would be easier to define freebies by what they were not.
For the Election Commission of India, Senior Advocate Arvind Datar had sought for review of the SC’s 2013 judgement passed in Subramaniam Balaji v State of Madras wherein the SC had while dealing with the issue of distribution of free gifts by the political parties such as DMK had observed that the State distributing largesse in the form of distribution of colour TVs, laptops, mixer-grinders etc. to eligible and deserving persons was directly related to the directive principles of the State Policy.
The Supreme Court on Friday directed the listing of the petitions seeking a ban on political parties for distributing freebies before the three-judge bench.
In a first, the apex court live-streamed the proceedings of the outgoing Chief Justice NV Ramana’s last day. However, the matter will be heard after four weeks.
A bench headed by Chief Justice NV Ramana said it was argued before it that the 2013 judgement delivered by a two-judge bench of the apex court in the matter of S Subramaniam Balaji vs The Government of Tamil Nadu and others required reconsideration.
The bench headed by CJI NV Ramana also comprising Justices Hima Kohli and CT Ravikumar issued directions in the plea filed by BJP leader Ashwini Upadhyay seeking to direct the Election Commission of India to restrain political parties from disturbing freebies during elections.
On Wednesday, the bench had reiterated the need for a debate to address the issue related to the distribution of freebies by political parties and had asked the Centre as to why it cannot call for all party meetings to deliberate on the same.
On Tuesday the court said that there was a need to decide whether a “promise” qualified as a welfare measure or a freebie. Citing an example of a shaving kit for a barber, bicycle for a student, equipment for a toddy tapper or iron for a washer man changing their lifestyle or uplifting them, the bench said what may seem like freebies to the urban population might provide welfare to rural poor.
ALSO READ | In a first, live steaming in Supreme Court today
CJI opined that all political parties in freebies were on one side and everyone wanted freebies to continue. Laying emphasis on the same, Ramana said that this was the reason why it had opined for the constitution of a neutral body comprising various stakeholders to give suggestions for addressing the freebies issue.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal who was invited by the bench in his capacity as a parliamentarian had contended that an “extensive debate” was needed before a decision could be taken on what is to be done. He had also suggested for the Finance Commission look into the problem.
SG Tushar Mehta said, “If you’re financing in a manner that’s destroying the economy, is that permissible?” Mehta had also said that the distribution of freebies by political parties resulted in the creation of an atmosphere that affected the informed choice of a voter. Mehta also submitted before the bench a list of autonomous institutions from whom the Court could seek a response by asking them to give their suggestions.
Asserting that the distribution of freebies created an unlevel playing field, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh for Upadhyay expressed his concern for the maintenance of financial discipline. He also said that the parties should disclose the source from where funds were being utilised for providing freebies.
For the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), Senior Advocate AM Singhvi said that the court shouldn’t make preparations in advance for Parliament debate on the issue.
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan also for Upadhyay had submitted that it would be easier to define freebies by what they were not.
For the Election Commission of India, Senior Advocate Arvind Datar had sought for review of the SC’s 2013 judgement passed in Subramaniam Balaji v State of Madras wherein the SC had while dealing with the issue of distribution of free gifts by the political parties such as DMK had observed that the State distributing largesse in the form of distribution of colour TVs, laptops, mixer-grinders etc. to eligible and deserving persons was directly related to the directive principles of the State Policy.
