Universal Coaching Centre -

Enter your keyword

8053+ OFFICERS SERVING THE NATION UNIVERSAL COACHING CENTRE Let's join hands together in bringing Your Name in Elite officers list. JOIN US 25 YEARS OF EXCELLENCE MEET NEW FRIENDS AND STUDY WITH EXPERTS JOIN US Nothing is better than having friends study together. Each student can learn from others through by teamwork building and playing interesting games. Following instruction of experts, you and friends will gain best scores.

ULP Click here! Click here! Classroom Programme NRA-CET Test Series
Click here ! Org code: XSHWV

post

FREEBIES’ VS WELFARE SPENDING: SUPREME COURT’S VIEW

Why in the News?

  • Judicial Distinction: The Supreme Court clearly differentiated between irrational freebies and legitimate welfare investment aimed at marginalised sections of society.
  • Chief Justice Remarks: Chief Justice Surya Kant emphasised that indiscriminate distribution of state largesse cannot be equated with constitutionally mandated welfare spending.
  • Petition Listing: The Court agreed to early hearing of petitions seeking to declare irrational pre-poll freebies as a corrupt practice.

SUPREME COURT’S KEY OBSERVATIONS

  • Conceptual Clarity: The Court stated that mass distribution of cash or goods differs fundamentally from investment in health, education, and social security.
  • Constitutional Duty: Welfare schemes for the poor are an obligation under the Directive Principles of State Policy, not electoral charity, and should align with environmental jurisprudence.
  • Inclusivity Focus: The Bench questioned why revenue surplus is not systematically diverted towards free healthcare and education for the non-creamy layers, considering environmental democracy principles.
  • Fiscal Prudence: Judges expressed concern over State finances being strained by fulfilling unrealistic electoral promises, potentially impacting environmental clearances and conservation efforts.
  • Balanced Approach: The Court acknowledged that legitimate welfare benefits should not be conflated with vote-inducing giveaways, emphasizing the need for a pollution-free environment.

LEGAL AND POLITICAL CONTEXT

  • Corrupt Practice Debate: Petitioners argued that irrational freebies should qualify as a corrupt practice under Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, with considerations for environmental impact.
  • Debt Concerns: The petitioner highlighted rising national debt, claiming unchecked freebies worsen fiscal stress and may impact environmental conservation efforts.
  • Judicial Evolution: The Court has gradually moved away from its 2013 S. Subramaniam Balaji judgment, which had upheld manifesto promises, now considering ex post facto environmental clearances.
  • Divergent Views: While some lawyers argue freebies fall under Article 282 expenditure, others stress distinguishing welfare from discrimination, with attention to the EIA notification process.
  • Policy Sensitivity: The issue sits at the intersection of electoral politics, fiscal discipline, and social justice, with implications for environmental jurisprudence.

WELFARE STATE AND ELECTORAL PROMISES IN INDIA
● Directive Principles: The Constitution mandates the State to ensure social and economic justice, especially for vulnerable populations, in line with the precautionary principle.
● Electoral Ethics: Excessive freebies raise questions about free and fair elections and voter inducement, potentially impacting environmental democracy.
● Fiscal Federalism: Unchecked welfare spending can weaken State finances and long-term development capacity, affecting environmental clearances and conservation efforts.
● Judicial Oversight: Courts increasingly act as guardians of constitutional balance between welfare and fiscal responsibility, considering the polluter pays principle.
● Democratic Balance: The challenge lies in ensuring inclusive welfare without promoting dependency or fiscal populism, while adhering to environmental jurisprudence and the Vanashakti judgment.