Are freebies creating a class of parasites: SC

In recent years, both the Union government and state governments have launched a slew of welfare schemes involving direct transfers.

New Delhi The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday strongly criticised the practice of political parties announcing “freebies” before elections, warning that such measures might discourage people from working and contributing to the nation’s development, while creating a class of “parasites”.

In recent years, both the Union government and state governments have launched a slew of welfare schemes involving direct transfers. (ANI PHOTO)

“Unfortunately, because of these freebies... the people are not willing to work. They are getting free rations. They are getting amounts without doing any work… Aren’t we creating a class of parasites?” a bench, comprising justices Bhushan R Gavai and AG Masih, remarked.

Hearing a case related to night shelters for the homeless, the bench added: “Unfortunately, because of these freebies, which come on the anvil of the elections…some Ladki Bahin and some other scheme, people are not willing to work. They are getting free ration, they are getting amount without any work, why should they work?... But would it not be better to make them a part of the mainstream of society and permit them to contribute to the development of the nation?”

Responding, advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for one of the petitioners in the matter, said that there is hardly anybody in the country who would not want to work if there is some work.

To be sure, most welfare schemes involving direct transfers are targeted at the poor, though, in many cases, they do not do a good job of weeding out ineligible beneficiaries. Maharashtra, for instance, is trying to crack down on ineligible beneficiaries of its Ladki Bahin scheme.

In recent years, both the Union government and state governments have launched a slew of welfare schemes involving direct transfers. Such schemes are also seen as a sure-fire way of winning elections. But experts have highlighted their ruinous impact on government finances, and also the effect they have on labour markets.

Justice Gavai referred to one such asymmetry. “I am telling you of the practical experiences...because of these freebies, some states give free ration...so the people do not want to work. I come from an agricultural family. Because of the freebies in Maharashtra, which were just announced prior to the elections, the agriculturalists are not getting labourers. When everybody is getting free at home, why would they want to work?” he asked.

The observations have reignited the debate around pre-election freebies, which are currently under judicial scrutiny in another matter before the Supreme Court. In those separate proceedings, the apex court is seized of a batch of petitions that seek a declaration that political parties making pre-election promises, luring voters with cash and incentives, should be held guilty of corrupt practices under election laws. The court is also set to examine the correctness of its 2013 judgment, which ruled that such election promises do not amount to corrupt practices. In 2022, the court framed preliminary questions to determine whether judicial intervention is permissible in such matters, whether an enforceable order can be passed, and whether an expert body should be constituted to curb such practices. This matter, however, has remained pending since 2022.

Justice Gavai-led benches have in the past too came down hard on the practice of doling out freebies. In January, justice Gavai commented that governments seem to have money to provide “freebies” to citizens who do not work, but a financial crunch is cited when paying salaries and pensions of judges. Similarly, in August 2024, the judge reproached the Maharashtra government for not paying adequate compensation to a man illegally dispossessed of his land 60 years ago, lamenting that the state has “thousands of crores of rupees to waste on freebies” but not to compensate a landowner.

During the hearing on the issue of night shelters, attorney general R Venkataramani informed the court that the Centre is finalising an Urban Poverty Alleviation Mission, which would address multiple concerns, including providing shelter for the urban homeless. The bench directed the AG to verify how soon the scheme would be implemented and whether the Union would continue funding urban shelter schemes in the meantime.

The court also asked the AG to verify statistics relied upon by the petitioners regarding the number of homeless individuals and the capacity of shelters across states and Union territories. A chart presented in court by petitioner ER Kumar provided a state-wise breakdown of homeless people, available shelters, and their actual capacity. Noting that the last column, showing the actual number of homeless persons per state, was based on Union government data, the court asked the AG to verify its accuracy.

Advocate Bhushan, appearing for Kumar, contended that government funding for urban shelters has significantly declined in recent years, leading to a dire situation where states claim they lack resources to provide adequate shelter. He cited alarming statistics, highlighting that over 750 homeless individuals had died this winter due to cold exposure. Bhushan further pointed out that while the Centre claimed 1,995 shelters were functional nationwide, with a total capacity of 1,16,000 beds, this was grossly inadequate. “In Delhi alone, the estimated homeless population is around three lakh, while the total capacity, as per DUSIB (Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board), is just 5,900 beds,” he argued.

The court also took note of complaints regarding state-wise monitoring committees, which were set up to ensure compliance with its previous directives. It was pointed out that these committees were not functioning effectively, and the bench indicated that their status would need to be reviewed in the next hearing. The case was adjourned for six weeks, with the bench awaiting responses from the Centre on the verification of data and the timeline for implementing the new Urban Poverty Alleviation Mission.