Freebies

Polity & Governance glossary

Also called: Irrational freebies · Topic: Electoral Reforms: Money, Criminalisation and Simultaneous Elections · NCERT: Beyond NCERT

Meaning

Freebies (also called "irrational freebies") are promises of free goods, services or cash that parties make before an election, which may strain public finances and sway voters. In S. Subramaniam Balaji (2013), the Supreme Court held that these promises are not a corrupt practice. It still asked the Election Commission of India (ECI) to add rules on manifestos to the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) [1].

They matter because they raise two questions together. Is an election still free and fair when voters are offered gifts? Can a state afford those promises? The hard part is telling a freebie apart from genuine welfare.

Explanation

What counts as a freebie

  • Core idea: a promise, made before the poll, to give something free if the party wins.
  • Common forms:
  • free consumer goods;
  • free services;

  • unconditional cash transfers (money given with no condition attached).

  • Why it worries people:

  • For elections: the voter may vote for the gift and not for the policy. The Supreme Court said such freebies "shake the root of free and fair elections".
  • For the economy: promises with no clear funding can widen state deficits and break FRBM limits (Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management: legal caps on government borrowing and deficits).

Welfare or freebie: the hard line

  • Welfare (backed by the Constitution):
  • merit goods (goods that benefit society as a whole, such as education, health and nutrition);

  • supported by the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP: the goals the Constitution sets for the state), in Articles 38, 39, 41 and 47.

  • Fiscal populism: giving things away to win votes, often through free consumer goods or unconditional cash, with no plan for paying for them.

  • The problem: the same scheme can look like welfare to one person and a freebie to another. No law defines a "freebie".

How freebies are controlled today

  • Not through the criminal law or the RPA: a manifesto promise is not a corrupt practice under s.123 of the Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1951.
  • Through the MCC instead. Under MCC Part VIII (Election Manifestos), 2014, a manifesto must [1]:
  • not contain anything against the ideals and principles of the Constitution;
  • avoid promises that may vitiate the purity of the election process (damage its fairness) or put undue influence on voters;

  • give the reason for each promise and broadly show how it will be funded.

  • Proposed next step: in October 2022, the ECI suggested a standard disclosure proforma. This is a fixed form in which parties would show how their promises are financially viable.

Limits of this control

  • The MCC is not a statute. No Act of Parliament creates it, so breaking it is not a crime in itself.
  • The ECI enforces it under Article 324 (its power of superintendence, direction and control of elections) through:
  • advisories and censure;

  • Para 16A of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, which lets it suspend or withdraw the recognition of a party that ignores the MCC.

  • So the main tools are disclosure and pressure, not a ban.

In the Constitution and practice

  • Constitutional base:
  • Article 324: the ECI's power to run elections, which is the basis for the MCC manifesto rules.

  • DPSP, Articles 38, 39, 41 and 47: the basis for genuine welfare spending.

  • Law: s.123 RPA, 1951 lists corrupt practices. If one is proved in an election petition (a case challenging an election result), the court declares the election void. The Supreme Court held that s.123 covers the candidate's own acts, not a party's manifesto.

  • S. Subramaniam Balaji v. Govt of Tamil Nadu (5 July 2013):
  • manifesto promises are not a corrupt practice under s.123 RPA;
  • but such freebies "shake the root of free and fair elections";

  • the Court directed the ECI to frame manifesto guidelines as part of the MCC [1].

  • MCC Part VIII (2014): the ECI's answer to Balaji. It requires parties to give the reason for each promise and show how it will be funded [1].

  • Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India:
  • August 2022: the Supreme Court referred the freebies question to a three-judge bench;
  • October 2022: the ECI proposed its disclosure proforma;

  • the case is still pending (verify current status).

  • Voter's side: in NCERT (Class 11), the National Voters' Day pledge asks citizens to vote "without being influenced by… any inducement". Freebies put this pledge to the test.

Don't confuse with

  • Bribery (a corrupt practice under s.123 RPA): a candidate directly offers a gift to a voter in exchange for their vote, and this can make the election void. A freebie is a party's public promise in its manifesto, and Balaji held it is not a corrupt practice.
  • Welfare schemes / merit goods: these are backed by the DPSPs (Articles 38, 39, 41 and 47) and have wider social value. Freebies are criticised as fiscal populism with no clear funding.
  • The MCC freeze on new government schemes: once polls are announced, the MCC stops the government in power from launching new schemes. MCC Part VIII deals with the promises in party manifestos about the future.
  • Paid news: this is a hidden cost that the ECI adds to a candidate's expense account, and it can lead to disqualification under s.10A. Freebies are open promises and are handled through manifesto disclosure, not through expense accounts.

Prelims Hooks

  • S. Subramaniam Balaji (2013): freebies are NOT a corrupt practice under s.123 RPA, because s.123 covers the candidate's acts, not a party manifesto. This is a favourite trap.
  • The manifesto guidelines are in MCC Part VIII (2014). They came in after the Supreme Court directed the ECI in Balaji [1].
  • MCC Part VIII requires the reason for each promise and the broad way it will be funded [1].
  • Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay: the freebies question was referred to a three-judge bench in August 2022. The ECI proposed a disclosure proforma in October 2022.
  • The MCC has no statutory basis. The ECI enforces it under Article 324 and Para 16A of the Symbols Order, 1968.
  • The DPSPs behind welfare are Articles 38, 39, 41 and 47. Use them to defend welfare as different from freebies.

Mains Points

  • Welfare and populism are hard to separate:
  • DPSP-backed merit goods such as education, health and nutrition must be protected;
  • unconditional cash and free consumer goods can widen deficits and weaken FRBM discipline;

  • courts cannot easily decide what counts as "welfare", so a judicial ban is a poor tool.

  • Disclosure, not prohibition:

  • enforce the funding explanation required by MCC Part VIII and adopt the ECI's 2022 proforma;
  • link manifesto promises to state budgets and FRBM limits;

  • build voter awareness, in the spirit of the "without any inducement" pledge.

  • The enforcement gap: after Balaji, manifesto promises fall outside the RPA, and the MCC is only a moral code under Article 324. The options are:

  • make key manifesto rules part of the RPA, which gives certainty but brings slow court cases during a short poll window;
  • keep the rules flexible under Article 324, backed by the threat of de-recognition under Para 16A.

Related concepts

Read more

Sources

  1. 1ECI — Election Manifestos (MCC Part VIII guidelines)eci.gov.in · tier 1