E-Paper
Aim is to start deliberation in Parliament on law for freebies: SC
The Supreme Court on Tuesday said it took up the issue of freebies in politics with the “good intention” of facilitating a dialogue in Parliament, which could consider framing a law with the assistance of the suggestions that the proposed committee appointed by the court may make
The Supreme Court on Tuesday said it took up the issue of freebies in politics with the “good intention” of facilitating a dialogue in Parliament, which could consider framing a law with the assistance of the suggestions that the proposed committee appointed by the court may make.
The court was hearing a petition filed by former BJP spokesperson Ashwini Upadhyay in Januaryseeking directions for issuance of stringent guidelines to deregister errant political parties and seize their election symbols for offering “irrational freebies”
During the hearing, the bench headed by chief justice of India NV Ramana, emphasised that the top court is neither going to issue directions on how to curb freebies, nor can it ask Parliament to make a particular law. “But the endeavour is to start a deliberation by the lawmakers to muse over possibility of a legislation,” said the bench.
“We think there could be some people in the committee who are concerned about the welfare of people, as well as the economy. They could make some suggestions to Parliament, which can then consider framing a law...To initiate a debate in Parliament, some background papers are required and we thought this committee could thus make certain suggestions,” remarked the bench, which also comprised justices CT Ravi Kumar and Hima Kohli.
The court’s observations came following objections raised by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) against the constitution of the committee on the ground that the issue of freebies is beyond judicially manageable standards and that the court must leave to the parliament, elected governments and the voters to decide.
The court further commented that the issue of freebies makes all political parties take the same stand. “On this issue, one we can say all political parties are one side, including the BJP [Bharatiya Janata Party] and the Congress. All of them want freebies. That is why we wanted a discussion on a neutral platform by some qualified people.”
It added: “With good intentions regarding the welfare of the people and economy of the country, we started discussing this issue... We have to balance things. We are not against the policies of any government. We are also not going to make a law. We just wanted to have a discussion since nobody will say it is not an issue.”
During the hearing, CJI Ramana pulled up the DMK over comments made by Tamil Nadu finance minister regarding the proceedings in the Supreme Court on the issue.
When senior advocate P Wilson, representing the DMK, sought to make submissions in the case, the CJI told him: “Mr Wilson, the party you represent, I have a lot of things to say but I am restraining myself because of being the CJI. Don’t think you are the only wise party. The way you are talking, giving statements... Don’t think we are ignoring all that is being said.”
For AAP, senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi raised the point that there cannot be any curb on the right to the candidates to make electoral speeches and that there will be no judicially manageable standards even for the proposed committee to provide something for the parliament to discuss.
To this, the bench retorted: “We are saying that the committee will decide the fate of 130 crore people of the country... It is very difficult to have watertight compartments for freebies. Take for example, a goat, a house or a bicycle that can be given...they will mean different things for different classes of people. The problem is to categorise benefits as freebies and others as welfare measures...with due respect to everyone present, we cannot sit here and have this debate with elite lawyers. That is why we think of a committee but there is objections to the committee as well.”
Amid the appeals by some parties to stay away from the issue, the bench pointed out that the top court will have to adjudicate the matter even if a law were to be framed in future and someone challenged it before the court.
On his part, senior advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the plea seeks to focus on freebies being promised at the time of elections and wants some financial discipline in place.
The bench, however, replied; “It’s a very complex issue. Even if you may be confining your case to promises made at the time of the election, the other part of it, about the schemes framed after the election, are also important.”
The hearing in the case will continue on Wednesday.
