Freebies for Some, State Responsibility for Others

FREEBIES ARE IN DISCUSSION yet again, as before every election. They are being touted as an unnecessary and imprudent expenditure, accompanied by claims that nobody should be given public welfare benefits free of charge. 

- V. Vijayasai Reddy

The criticism of freebies is based on two primary concerns – first, they affect the economics of the state as they are alleged to be a wasteful expense and second, they reduce the financial resources that can otherwise be used for other purposes. A third criticism has emerged after a writ petition was admitted by the Supreme Court that promises of freebies lure voters and are analogous to bribery and undue influence, thereby affecting democracy in the country.

Before getting into the discussion on freebies, it is important to define them. Interestingly, there is no authoritative definition of freebies. The RBI, in its Report on State Finances, states that there is no precise definition of freebies and that it is necessary to distinguish them from public/merit goods, expenditure on which brings economic benefits, such as the public distribution system, employment guarantee schemes and states’ support for education and health.

In the absence of a definition of what constitutes a freebie and the lack of constitutional competence of the Parliament and the Supreme Court to give a definition to it, a discussion on its legality is fraught with objections. In such a situation, a case-based, or rather, a statebased approach is the most valid form of assessment.