‘Freebies’ totally different from public welfare funding, says Supreme Court docket

The Supreme Court docket on Wednesday (January 21, 2026) drew a transparent line between State functionaries splurging public cash on irrational freebies and “investing” in welfare schemes for the marginalised sections.

“Distribution of State largesse to people at a big scale is totally different from investing State largesse in public welfare schemes. That distinction needs to be stored in thoughts,” Chief Justice Surya Kant noticed orally.

The Supreme Court docket requested why there was no “devoted diversion of income surplus for developmental functions which might additional the constitutional supreme of inclusivity by free medical care and schooling for the poor and people not within the creamy layer of the society. The State has a dedication in direction of this finish”.

The Chief Justice stated launching welfare schemes was an obligation the State needed to obtain below the Directive Rules of State Coverage within the Structure.

The oral observations from the Bench, additionally comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi, have been in response to an oral point out made by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay for early itemizing of a batch of petitions in search of a judicial declaration that irrational freebies supplied by political events to lure voters throughout ballot time needs to be thought of a “corrupt apply”.

Mr. Upadhyay stated when the petition was filed, the nation was in debt of ₹1.5 lakh crore, which had since elevated to ₹2.5 lakh crore. Each Indian was in debt, and but the State continued to rain freebies earlier than elections, he submitted.

“It is a very, crucial matter,” Chief Justice Kant reacted, agreeing to record it early for listening to.

In January final 12 months, an apex courtroom Bench headed by Justice (now retired) B.R. Gavai had requested whether or not untrammelled freebies lull the poor right into a parasitic existence, depriving them of any initiative to search out work, be part of the mainstream and contribute to nationwide improvement.

The courtroom has, in earlier hearings within the case, made its nervousness plain about events, which type the federal government using the wave created by their pre-poll guarantees of “free items”, bleeding the State funds dry by truly attempting to fulfil their “wild” guarantees of largesse utilizing public cash.

Amicus curiae, senior advocate Vijay Hansaria, had submitted that the courtroom needed to resolve whether or not “giving freebies can be a corrupt apply below Part 123 of the Illustration of the Individuals Act, 1951 and change into a floor for shifting courtroom in an election petition”.

Senior advocate Arvind Datar, for the petitioner facet, had submitted that freebies should be thought of as “expenditure defrayable by the Union or a State out of its revenues” below Article 282 of the Structure.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan had stated legit freebies should not be classed with discriminatory items.

“Getting rid of the money owed of willful defaulters is an illegitimate freebie. Giving advantages to a selected non secular group would classify as a discriminatory freebie,” he defined.

Constantly, through the years, the courtroom has been shifting away from its 2013 judgment within the S. Subramaniam Balaji versus Tamil Nadu case, which held that making guarantees in election manifestos didn’t quantity to a “corrupt apply” below Part 123 of the Illustration of the Individuals Act.