The Supreme Court docket on Thursday (February 19, 2026) chastised State governments for distributing freebies indiscriminately with out even distinguishing between the haves and the have-nots, questioning whether or not they’re following an “appeasement” coverage with no thought for the general public exchequer forward of elections.
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, heading a three-judge Bench, stated States, even these which can be revenue-surplus, should prioritise welfare and improvement over irrational largesse. Regardless of working on deficit, the Chief Justice stated, States appeared to nonetheless have cash to randomly splurge on largesse. The court docket requested whether or not States had a examined mechanism to distribute welfare successfully, to those that really want a “serving to hand”.
“Is it not your obligation to spend cash to develop infrastructure, roads, hospitals, faculties, medical faculties? As an alternative, you retain giving scooties, you distribute garments, meals on the time of elections. What is occurring on this nation,” the Chief Justice requested.
The court docket stated largesse was distributed in such a manner that probably the most prosperous get them first.
“It’s comprehensible that some individuals can not afford, the State has to supply. There are kids who can not afford schooling. You need to present. It’s their basic proper. There are various vibrant youngsters who can not afford greater schooling. It’s the State’s responsibility to increase a serving to hand to them. That’s welcome. However for individuals who don’t deserve, those that are prosperous, why give them freebies? Why do freebies come to their pockets first? Is it not excessive time for the States to revisit these insurance policies,” Chief Justice Kant requested.
The Bench, additionally comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi, was listening to a writ petition filed by the Tamil Nadu Energy Distribution Company Restricted (TNPDCL), represented by senior advocates Gopal Subramanium and P. Wilson, difficult the constitutional validity of Rule 23 of the Electrical energy (Modification) Act, 2024.
Mr. Subramanium stated the hole in income from electrical energy and expenditure has expanded through the years. In Tamil Nadu, the hole has touched ₹50,000-odd crore yearly, which the federal government was absorbing. The senior counsel stated Rule 23 would additional financially stretch the State authorities to such an extent that it must move on the tariff burden to the shoppers.
“The Rule, if carried out, would end in an exponential tariff shock, adversely affecting electrical energy shoppers and inserting an unsustainable burden on the general public exchequer,” the TNPDCL petition submitted.
It stated Rule 23 mandated a mere hole of solely 3% between accepted annual income requirement and estimated annual income from tariff. The hole would additionally embody the carrying prices on the base charge of late fee surcharge as specified below Electrical energy (Late Cost Surcharge and Associated Issues) Guidelines, 2022, which needed to be liquidated in a most three equal yearly installments. The mechanism would put an unnatural pressure on the State funds, Mr. Wilson defined.
The Chief Justice requested why the State’s coverage didn’t enable the federal government to generate earnings from the facility sector by making the prosperous sections pay for the electrical energy they devour.
Mr. Subramanium stated these are issues of governance, and there must be a kind of fairness in issues of allocation of sources.
“Why ought to State governments, be it Haryana or Punjab or Tamil Nadu, Rajasthan or the northeastern States, have a lot statesmanship? We all know what is occurring in States when elections come up. Why all of a sudden schemes are introduced. Excessive time all political stalwarts, leaders, political events and ideologues revisit the whole lot… We will probably be hampering the bigger welfare obligations of the federal government if we carry on distributing largesse with no care. There needs to be a stability,” Chief Justice Kant noticed.
The court docket stated distribution of largesse short-sightedly in the end have an effect on the poor whose youngsters want welfare schemes and funds to check in good faculties and go to good hospitals the place medical care was not expensive.
At one level, the court docket proposed that the federal government file an affidavit as to from the place they might supply the funds for welfare and improvement.
Nevertheless, after a short convention among the many judges on the Bench, Chief Justice Kant addressed the Tamil Nadu aspect, saying the court docket didn’t need to “cross our limitations and remark or determine on the aim of a welfare scheme or the way it ought to be given”.
“That’s the area of political knowledge. That’s for the elected authorities to iron out. However our fear is that the States are working in deficit. Nonetheless you [States] have this sort of distribution of largesse. The place is the cash coming from? The States must have a mechanism to unfold welfare successfully. Twenty-five % of income you accumulate yearly, why ought to it not be devoted totally for improvement, for roads, irrigation, and many others,” Chief Justice Kant requested.
The court docket issued discover to the Union authorities on TNPDCL’s petition.
Revealed – February 19, 2026 03:57 pm IST
