The Supreme Court has strongly criticised the practice of announcing cash transfer schemes and other freebies by state governments just before elections.
The bench, led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, expressed concern that such measures, if distributed indiscriminately, could hamper the country’s long-term economic development. The Court questioned the rationale behind providing benefits to all citizens regardless of their financial status and emphasised the need for targeted welfare policies.
According to Live Law, the Supreme Court observed that the trend of announcing welfare schemes immediately before elections is widespread across India. The bench stated that distributing state benefits without distinguishing between those who can afford them and those who cannot amounts to appeasement, which is detrimental to economic progress.
The Court highlighted the importance of using state resources for development projects such as roads, hospitals, and schools, rather than for blanket distribution of goods and cash.
As reported by Deccan Herald, the bench noted that most states are running revenue deficits while continuing to offer such largesse. The justices stressed that states should prioritise opening avenues for employment and focus on long-term development instead of providing free food, cycles, and electricity to all citizens. The Court questioned the sustainability of these practices, especially when states are already facing financial constraints.
The Court further remarked that the fundamental principle should be that individuals pay for services if they are able to do so. Coverage revealed that the justices called for a review of policy frameworks, urging political leaders and parties to reconsider the culture of distributing largesse, particularly during election periods. The bench emphasised that welfare measures should be reserved for the marginalised and not extended indiscriminately to affluent individuals.
The Supreme Court also raised concerns about the impact of direct cash transfer schemes on work culture and employment. The bench questioned whether people would continue to work if they received free food, gas, and electricity, and whether such policies contribute to nation-building. Analysis showed that the Court is currently examining related petitions and has issued notices to the Union government regarding the matter.
In its oral observations, the Court clarified that it does not oppose welfare for those genuinely in need, such as children who cannot afford education or marginalised groups. However, the justices reiterated that blanket distribution of benefits to all, including the affluent, is not justified. The bench called for a balanced approach, suggesting that states should recover costs from those who can afford to pay and dedicate resources to sustainable development. The need for a shift from short-term populist measures to long-term planning was underscored as details emerged.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi, part of the bench, pointed out that the issue is not limited to any single state but is a pan-India concern. The Court urged states to justify their expenditure on welfare schemes and to ensure that budget proposals are planned and transparent. Reporting indicated that the Court has called for all stakeholders, including political leaders and social engineers, to revisit and reform current policy frameworks to prevent the continued distribution of indiscriminate largesse.
Note: This article is produced using AI-assisted tools and is based on publicly available information. It has been reviewed by The Quint's editorial team before publishing.