/2022 INSC 0752/
I N   THE  S UPREME  C OURT   OF  I NDIA
C IVIL  O RIGINAL  J URISDICTION
W RIT  P ETITION  (C IVIL ) N O . 43  OF  2022   
A SHWINI  K UMAR  U PADHYAY …P ETITIONER
V ERSUS
U NION  O F  I NDIA  A ND  A NR . …R ESPONDENTS
W ITH
W RIT  P ETITION  (C IVIL ) N O . 87  OF  2022   
W RIT  P ETITION  (C IVIL ) N O . 474  OF  2022   
W RIT  P ETITION  (C IVIL ) N O . 496  OF  2022   
W RIT  P ETITION  (C IVIL ) N O . 383  OF  2022   
W RIT  P ETITION  (C IVIL ) N O . 121  OF  2022   
ORDER   
1. The   questions   raised   in   the   present   set   of   petitions   relates   to
promises   made   by   political   parties   for   the   distribution   of   free
goods   (‘freebies’)   as   a   part   of   their   election   manifesto   or   during
election   speeches.   The   main   contention   of   the   petitioners   is   that
such pre­election promises, which have a largescale impact on the
economy of the State, cannot be permitted. The petitioners submit
that   such   pre­election   promises   are   being   made   by   political
parties   without   any   assessment   of   the   financial   implications   on
1 REPORTABLE

the State is nothing but an attempt to attract the vote bank. This
goes   against   the   spirit   of   responsible   electioneering   and   is
adversely affecting free and fair elections. This severely affects the
level   playing   field   between   the   different   political   parties.   The
money   that   is   being   paid   by   the   taxpayers   is   ultimately   being
misused for political parties/candidates to gain or retain power.  
2. In this batch of petitions there are two sets of writ petitions. The
first   batch   relates   to   pre­elections   freebies   which   may   influence
voters   at   the   time   of   elections.   The   second   set   of   petitions
challenge   the   grant   of   benefits   by   Governments   which   do   not
relate to any welfare measure or developmental activity but rather
are a ploy to capture vote banks.  
3. The learned Solicitor General of India has responded to the above
submissions   by   stating   that   the   Union   has   a   very   limited   role
when   it   comes   to   this   issue   and   suggested   that   this   Court   may
constitute a Commission to consider the same. 
4. The   Election   Commission   of   India   has   consistently   taken   the
stand   before   this   Court   that   it   has   limited   scope   to   interfere   in
such   promises   which   are   being   made   by   political
parties/candidates.
5. Additionally,   some   political   parties   have   filed   intervention
applications   in   this   batch   of   petitions   and   have   challenged   the
2

very   maintainability   of   these   petitions.   The   main   thrust   of   their
submissions   is   that   the   issues   raised   in   these   petitions   relate   to
policy or fiscal decisions of the State, which decisions are clearly
outside the scope of the Court’s jurisdiction. They submitted that
it is unimaginable that any Government or Court can prescribe or
curtail   the   rights   of   political   parties   to   make   such   promises   or
announcement   of   schemes   as   is   sought   for   in   the   present   case.
The   political   parties   which   are   responsible   for   running   of   the
Governments   are   conscious   and   aware   of   the   problems   of   the
people. It was, therefore, contended by the interveners to leave the
issue open to the political parties.
6. When   these   matters   were   taken   up   on   03.08.2022,   we   had   also
sought   the   opinion   of   learned   Senior   counsel   Mr.   Kapil   Sibal
regarding   the   issues   being   raised.  He  was   initially   of  the   opinion
that   this   is   a   serious   issue   which   needs   to   be   tackled   in   some
manner.   However,   subsequently,   he   has   expressed   his   doubts
about the appropriateness of judicial intervention on this issue.
 
7. Freebies   may   create   a   situation   wherein   the   State   Government
cannot provide basic amenities due to lack of funds and the State
is pushed towards imminent bankruptcy. In the same breath, we
should   remember   that   such   freebies   are   extended   utilizing   tax
payers money  only  for  increasing  the popularity  of the party  and
3

electoral prospects.
8. We   have   considered   the   issues   raised   in   these   batch   of   petitions
from various angles, as well as the stands taken by the Union of
India, the Election Commission of India and some political parties
who have filed intervention applications before us. 
9. There   can   be   no   denying   the   fact   that   in   an   electoral   democracy
such as ours, the true power ultimately lies with the electorate. It
is   the   electorate   that   decides   which   party   or   candidate   comes   to
power,   and   also   judges   the   performance   of   the   said   party   or
candidate at the end of the legislative term, during the next round
of  the  elections. It is also necessary  to highlight  herein  the point
raised   by   some   of   the   intervenors,   that   all   promises   cannot   be
equated   with   freebies   as   they   relate   to   welfare   schemes   or
measures   for   the   public   good.   Not   only   are   these   a   part   of   the
Directive Principles of State Policy, but are also a responsibility of
the   welfare   state.   At   the   same   time,   the   worry   raised   by   the
petitioners   herein,   that   under   the   guise   of   electoral   promises,
fiscal   responsibility   is   being   dispensed   with,   must   also   be
considered.
10. This   Court   has   generally   stayed   its   hand   when   confronted   with
issues relating to policy or fiscal matters concerning the State, as
the   same   falls   outside   the   ambit   of   the   Court’s   jurisdiction.
4

Initially,   with   the   objective   of   initiating   a   discussion   about   the
issues   highlighted,   we   were   of   the   opinion   that   it   might   be
appropriate   to   constitute   an   expert   body   to   prepare   a   report   or
white paper which could suggest a way forward. To this end,  vide
order   dated   03.08.2022   we   sought   for   suggestions   from   the
parties   before   us   regarding   the   possible   composition   of   such   a
body. Additionally, during  the  course of the  last  hearing, we had
suggested to the Union of India that an All Party Meeting be called
to consider this issue.  
11. Ultimately,  it   appears  to   us  that   the  issues  raised  by   the  parties
require   an   extensive   hearing   before   any   concrete   orders   can   be
passed.   Certain   preliminary   issues   that   may   need   to   be
deliberated upon and decided in the present set of petitions are as
follows:
a. What is the scope of judicial intervention with respect to the
reliefs sought in the present batch of petitions?
b. Whether   any   enforceable   order   can   be   passed   by   this   Court
in these petitions? 
c. Whether   the   appointment   of   a   Commission/Expert   Body   by
the   Court   would   serve   any   purpose   in   this   matter?
Additionally,   what   should   be   the   scope,   composition,   and
powers of the said Commission/Expert Body?
5

12. Apart   from   the   above   preliminary   questions,   many   of   the   parties
before us have also submitted that the judgment of this Court in
S. Subramaniam Balaji v. State of Tamil Nadu , (2013) 9 SCC
659   requires   reconsideration.   In   S.   Subramaniam   Balaji
(supra) ,   this   Court   was   called   upon   to   determine   whether   pre­
election   promises   amounted   to   corrupt   practices   under   Section
123   of   the   Representation   of   the   People   Act,   1951.   The   Court   in
that case held that such promises do not fall within the ambit of
corrupt   practices   as   specified   under   Section   123   of   the
Representation   of   the   People   Act,   1951,   and   issued   directions   to
the   Election   Commission   of   India   regarding   framing   of   certain
guidelines,   in   the   absence   of   any   legislative   enactment   covering
the field. 
13. It is submitted by some of the parties herein that the reasoning in
the   above   judgment   is   flawed   as   it   has   not   considered   various
provisions   of   the   Representation   of   the   People   Act,   1951.   It   was
also   submitted   that   the   judgment   incorrectly   implies   that   the
Directive   Principles   of   State   Policy   can   override   the   fundamental
rights under Part III of the Constitution, which is against the law
settled   by   a   Constitution   Bench   of   this   Court   in   Minerva   Mills
Ltd. v. Union of India,  (1980) 3 SCC 625 . 
6

14. Looking at the complexity of the issues involved, and the prayer to
overrule a judgment rendered by a two­Judge Bench of this Court
in   S. Subramaniam Balaji (supra) , we direct listing of these set
of petitions before a three­Judge Bench, after obtaining the orders
of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India. 
15. List the matter after 4 weeks.  
...........................CJI.
(N.V. RAMANA)
…...........................J.
(HIMA KOHLI)
      
                …...........................J.
( C.T. RAVIKUMAR )
NEW DELHI;
AUGUST 26, 2022.
7