OPINION | Is a free grinder as an election promise, okay? Yes, but Supreme Court’s now uneasy

The Supreme Court deprecated the practice of announcing freebies before elections

A television set or a mixer grinder may appear innocuous when offered as a prize in a lucky draw or a community event. However, it assumes a deeper meaning when they become a part of ‘electoral promises’.

Indian elections are shaped by a complex interplay of caste dynamics, political mobilisation, and the personal influence of candidates. Within this competitive landscape, electoral promises, ranging from assurances of ‘rozgaar’ to the distribution of material freebies, have emerged as a dominant campaign strategy.

While these promises are often defended as instruments of welfare and social justice, they also raise questions regarding how it affects the level playing field among political actors, the idea of free and fair elections and their impact on the economy.

Tamil Nadu’s case history

In the 2006 Tamil Nadu assembly elections, DMK promised to give each household a colour television. DMK won the elections and, fulfilling its promise, it decided to provide a 14-inch television set to all eligible families in the State and made a provision of Rs 750 crore for implementing the scheme. In the first phase of the implementation, 30,000 colour television sets were distributed.

The DMK's decision was challenged by Balaji, a resident of Tamil Nadu in the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. The petitioner argued that promises of free distribution of non-essential commodities in an election manifesto amount to an electoral bribe under Section 123 of the RP Act, and the Comptroller and Auditor General of India has a duty to examine expenditures even before they are deployed. He argued that money can be taken out of the Consolidated Fund of the State only for “public purposes”. Also, he argued that the distribution of goods to certain sections of people was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

Madras HC’s position

The High Court dismissed the petition. The court held that the government’s decision to distribute free televisions cannot be marked as a waste of the exchequer. It opined that the manifesto of a political party is a statement of its policy. The question of implementing the manifesto arises only if the political party forms a government. It is the promise of a future government and not of an individual candidate.

An appeal was filed in the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, the state was gearing up for the next assembly election in 2011. And this was no different from the last one, at least in the matter of electoral promises. This time, AIADMK made its best to match DMK in offering freebies.

It promised to distribute free of cost several household goods like grinders, mixies, electric fans, laptop computers, 4 gms gold thalis, Rs 50,000 cash for women’s marriage and 20 kgs rice to all ration card holders, even to those above the poverty line and free cattle and sheep. AIADMK won the elections. Subsequently, tenders were issued for the procurement of the promised goods.

Supreme Court holds that election promises are not ‘corrupt’ practices

The petitioner once again approached the Supreme Court, challenging the legal validity of the scheme. Both petitions were clubbed together, and the apex court eventually pronounced its judgment on the issue.

The apex court held that making promises in election manifestos does not amount to a ‘corrupt practice’ under Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act (RP).

A subtle change in 2023

However, in January 2023, the Supreme Court referred to a three-judge Bench a series of petitions seeking a judicial direction that political parties who make “wild” promises of largesse should also reveal in their poll manifestos where they will get the money to pay for them.

Earlier, in April 2022, the Election Commission of India (ECI) filed an affidavit before the Supreme Court pursuant to the Court’s directions in a similar case. The ECI expressed its inability to regulate the practice of promising freebies during election campaigns, arguing that such promises fall within the domain of policy choices. It argued that any attempt by the Commission to regulate these promises would amount to an overreach of its constitutional mandate.

In August 2022, a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana and Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli suggested the constitution of an expert committee to 'dispassionately' examine the issue of electoral freebies. The Court indicated that the committee could include representatives from the Finance Commission, NITI Aayog, the Law Commission, the Reserve Bank of India, and political parties.

By 2025, the unease among judges is evident

And in recent instances in February 2025, the Supreme Court deprecated the practice of announcing freebies before elections, and said people were not willing to work as they were getting free rations and money.

During the recent Bihar elections, RJD leader Tejashwi Yadav’s promise of “one government job to every family” reignited the debate over the feasibility of certain electoral promises. A broad assessment makes clear that it was fiscally untenable.

There’s a case to revisit the issue

The growing reliance on freebies compels a critical examination of whether electoral competition is being guided by informed democratic choice or distorted by inducements that test the ethical limits of constitutional democracy.

In judicial discourse, the importance of Judicial Impact Assessment (JIA) is often emphasised. JIA involves evaluating the impact of proposed legislation on the judiciary and legal system. A similar framework of economic impact assessment is equally necessary before grand electoral promises are made. It is essential to ascertain how proposed schemes or freebies would affect the economy, particularly whether a sudden surge in public expenditure during their implementation can be reconciled with the prevailing trajectory of economic growth.

In June 2022, an article titled State Finances: A Risk Analysis was published in the RBI Bulletin. The article, while delving into fiscal risks confronting state governments in India, with emphasis on the heavily indebted states, identified “rising expenditure on non- merit freebies” as one of the emerging new sources of risks.

Lines of demarcation need to be clear

Additionally, a clear distinction must be drawn between genuine social welfare measures and electoral freebies. While social welfare initiatives are integral to governance in India—particularly in a country where a large segment of the population continues to live below the poverty line and depend on subsistence incomes—the unregulated proliferation of freebies warrants concern. Regulation of such promises is therefore a necessity, not to undermine welfare policy, but to preserve fiscal discipline, electoral fairness, and constitutional morality.

The problem of impractical electoral promises, therefore, extends beyond concerns of a level playing field, voter choice, and the fairness of elections; it has profound and lasting implications for the economy and society at large.  

(Views are personal and do not represent the stand of this publication.)