The Supreme Court’s recent observations on electoral freebies come at a critical moment for Indian democracy. Questioning whether indiscriminate subsidies and cash transfers amount to appeasement, a bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant warned that such practices threaten fiscal stability and national development.
The Court’s intervention serves as a crucial reminder that democracy is undermined when public funds are deployed as electoral bait. For an election to be meaningful, citizens must vote freely and fairly, based on informed choice, not financial inducement.
Yet, India's electoral landscape has drifted from manifesto-driven governance toward competitive populism, with direct benefit transfers timed suspiciously close to polling dates.
From giveaways to cash transfers
This evolution from material giveaways to direct cash transfers represents a troubling shift. Previously, states like Tamil Nadu and Bihar distributed goods such as saris, television sets, and bicycles—schemes framed as developmental aids. Today, money is electronically transferred into bank accounts on the eve of elections under the guise of government programmes.
In recent Bihar and Maharashtra elections, such transfers—particularly to women, who constitute half the population—were widely believed to have influenced outcomes. When incumbents use state resources to deliver immediate financial benefits, the principle of a level playing field is severely compromised.
For instance, the Opposition can only promise, while the ruling party can implement it. Tamil Nadu’s promise of free electricity ahead of Assembly elections reflects a nationwide pattern where ruling parties convert governance into electoral advantage.
Economic cost and democratic risk
The economic consequences are equally severe. Every rupee spent on indiscriminate giveaways is denied to roads, schools, hospitals, and long-term infrastructure. States pleading poverty for development projects somehow find resources for universal freebies.
The Supreme Court has wisely distinguished between targeted welfare and blanket subsidies: supporting those below the poverty line aligns with constitutional commitments, but extending benefits to affluent households is fiscal imprudence masquerading as compassion. Subsidies must remain transparent and subject to legislative scrutiny.
India faces a fundamental choice between empowering citizens and cultivating dependency. Welfare is essential; appeasement is corrosive. A democracy that trades votes for subsidies risks mortgaging its future, eroding both economic stability and the sanctity of the ballot.
