Investment for the welfare of the poor and the marginalised and freebies are not the same. Recently, the Supreme Court made this distinction clear orally in response to an oral mention by an advocate for listing a batch of petitions. The petitions request that the practice of offering freebies to entice voters during elections be declared a corrupt practice by the court. This alludes to Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, which lists bribery among the “corrupt practices” that interfere with free and fair elections. While pronouncing on a case in 2013, however, the Supreme Court had said that making promises in election manifestos was not to be considered such a corrupt practice. Since then, though, the Supreme Court has not shown itself favourable to the promises of free gifts made by parties which form the government and the tendency to exploit public finances by trying to keep these pledges. The most recent comments by the Supreme Court point to the importance of the distinction between freebies for election time and welfare schemes for those not in the creamy layer of society. The court said that using revenue surplus for developmental schemes was part of the State’s commitment towards fulfilling the constitutional ideal of inclusivity. Free medical care and free education for the poor as part of development schemes should, presumably, be a better use of the State’s public money than spending it on freebies.

The Supreme Court’s oral pronouncement touches on two issues. It appears to criticise freebies implicitly by citing a better use of the State’s largesse. It directly declares the State’s obligation to honour the Constitution by formulating developmental schemes in place of freebies. So freebies can be seen as a waste of resources, not just hurdles in the way of free and fair elections. In other words, the court’s pronouncement could appear to be a sharp reminder to political parties of their duties when they form governments. The distinction between wasting public funds in order to come to power and using these funds for the development of the less privileged lays bare the difference between grabbing power and the actual responsibility of governance. So the court’s comments go beyond condemning freebies as a corrupt practice during election time and indicate the long-lasting damage to resources that they cause.