The Supreme Court on Wednesday strongly criticized the practice of announcing freebies to win elections, observing that such poll promises are discouraging people from working. The court remarked that the distribution of free ration and monetary benefits without any work contribution could be fostering a “class of parasites” in society.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and Augustine George Masih made the observations while hearing a case related to the right to shelter for homeless individuals in urban areas. Expressing concerns over the impact of electoral freebies, the court remarked, “Because of freebies, when elections are declared, the people are not willing to work. They are getting free rations without doing any work.”
The apex court’s sharp comments come just days after the Delhi Assembly Elections, where both the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) had made several lucrative promises to voters. AAP had pledged schemes such as the Mahila Samman Yojana, which offers Rs 2,100 monthly assistance to every woman, waiver of water bills, free bus rides for male students, and a 50% concession on metro fares for all students. Meanwhile, BJP had also made attractive offers, including Rs 2,500 monthly aid to women and free gas cylinders on Holi and Diwali.
Attorney General R Venkataramani, representing the Centre, informed the court that the government is in the process of finalizing an urban poverty alleviation mission aimed at providing shelter and other benefits to the urban homeless. In response, the court directed the Attorney General to confirm when the program would commence. The matter will be heard again in six weeks.
The issue of election freebies has been a growing concern, with several political parties offering direct cash transfers and subsidies to attract voters. In recent state elections, similar financial assistance programs played a significant role in BJP’s victories in Madhya Pradesh, Haryana, and Maharashtra.
As political parties continue to leverage freebies as a campaign strategy, the Supreme Court’s observations could spark a broader debate on the long-term economic and social consequences of such practices.
