NEW DELHI: Reiterating the need for a debate to address the issue related to distribution of freebies by political parties, the Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the Centre as to why can it not call for all party meetings to deliberate on the same.
The bench led by CJI NV Ramana opined that the issue could not be controlled until and unless there was a unanimous vision on banning the freebies that could destroy the economy.
“It’s only the political parties who make the promises and contest the elections, not individuals. Individuals may not have much importance in this system but its the political parties in our democracy. Until and unless there is a unanimous vision that we have to stop the freebies that can destroy the economy, we can’t control the issue. If tomorrow we pass an order, none will care. Why can't all the political parties meet and the Government of India can ask for their view as to what is that they want,” the Top judge said.
The bench also expressed its concerns with regards to the person who would head the committee to be constituted for giving suggestions for addressing the issues. On Senior Advocate Vikas Singh’s suggestion that the committee could be headed by retired SC judge, CJI said, “A person who retires or is going to retire from his professional life has no value in India.”
ALSO READ | What is a freebie, whose money is it anyway?
Terming distribution of freebies just before the elections as “main problem”, Advocate Prashant Bhushan asserted that giving freebies just 6 months before the elections was like giving bribe to the voters.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal contended that an “extensive debate” was needed before a decision could be taken on what is to be done. “We’ll enter into a morass which we will not be able to handle. We’ll have to get out of that morass and have a system which we can afford,” Sibal said.
SG Tushar Mehta submitted that distribution of freebies by political parties resulted in creation of an atmosphere that affected the informed choice of a voter. Mehta also submitted before the bench a list of autonomous institutions from whom the Court could seek response by asking them to give their suggestions.
“There are parties who are not in the state or centre but they are giving freebies. People can be lured to vote for me and I didn’t even know what would be the structure of the electricity. Would the voter have an atmosphere where he can make an informed decision? Post election is one thing. But pre elections can you promise the moon to get the election win,” Mehta said.
“Why can’t the Government of India constitute a committee to study the issue of freebies?” CJI asked Mehta.
Responding to the CJI’s question Mehta said that the Centre would help in every way and the Committee can submit a report in 3 months which can be considered by the bench.