"Vague & Evasive, No Homework Has Been Done": Supreme Court While Permitting Withdrawal Of PIL On Electoral Freebies

The Supreme Court today dismissed a Writ Petition aimed at curbing the unchecked use of electoral freebies by political parties.

The Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice N.K. Singh criticized the petition for its lack of specificity and comprehensive supporting material.

Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Mohit D. Ram requested additional time to elaborate his submissions on the matter, but the Bench granted him only 20 minutes on the condition that he file a detailed petition with necessary particulars rather than a vague sketch.

“We don’t want to be your advisor as to who should be party respondents, what material should be disclosed, and what the prayer should be,” Justice Kant remarked sharply.

Advocate Ram emphasized that his petition sought an order directing the Election Commission to exercise its plenary powers under Article 324 of the Constitution to prevent political parties from making hollow promises of freebies in the six months preceding elections.

However, when questioned about the definition of “freebies,” Ram conceded that the term was not defined and was currently under consideration by the Court.

The Bench asked, "Where is the expression 'freebies' defined? If there is a social welfare scheme formulated by a State or promised by a State, within the meaning of the Directive Principle principle, will that scheme also fall under freebies, or will that not?"

To this, Ram submitted, "It is not defined. That issue is being considered by the honourable Court."

"Then go and become a party there," Justice Kant said. He remarked, "The petition is completely vague and evasive. No homework has been done before filing the same. The same is dismissed."

Justice Kant suggested that if the petitioner wished to contest that issue, he should file a petition specifically addressing it and go to the appropriate forum.

Consequently, the Bench observed that the petition appeared to be an attempt to gain cheap popularity.

The petitioner sought permission to withdraw his application, and the Court permitted the withdrawal with liberty to refile a fresh petition containing detailed averments, factual material, and appropriately impleaded respondents.

About the Petition

The Writ Petition filed through AoR Shashank Shekhar contended that extravagant and unsustainable promises made during election campaigns undermine state fiscal health, distort democratic processes, and violate constitutional principles of equality and good governance.

According to the petition, various political parties have announced a slew of freebies on the eve of elections without any disclosure of financial feasibility. Examples cited include promises such as Rs. 2,100 per month to every woman by the Aara Aadmi Party, Rs. 2,500 per month by Congress, enhanced pensions for senior citizens by the Bharatiya Janata Party, and numerous other concessions ranging from free smartphones to free electricity and housing schemes in states like Punjab and Himachal Pradesh. These promises, the petitioner argues, divert funds from critical sectors such as healthcare, education, and infrastructure, and may set a dangerous precedent for future electoral contests.

The petitioner further highlights that the Reserve Bank of India has warned that excessive expenditure on subsidies—including farm loan waivers, free electricity, and transport allowances, could crowd out resources needed for essential socio-economic infrastructure. Recent reports suggest that Punjab is grappling with a fiscal crisis due to a power subsidy bill exceeding Rs. 24,000 crore, while other states face similar challenges.

The petition drew on precedents such as Public Interest Foundation v. Union of India (2019) and Mohinder Singh Gill v. Election Commissioner (1978 AIR 851), which underscore the constitutional imperative of free and fair elections. The petitioner argued that Article 324 of the Constitution confers comprehensive powers on the Election Commission of India (ECI) to regulate the conduct of political parties. In the absence of specific legislation, the ECI is empowered to take all necessary measures to ensure that election promises do not distort democratic competition or jeopardize fiscal stability.

In light of these arguments, the petitioner sought the Supreme Court’s intervention to prevent the unchecked misuse of electoral freebies. Specifically, the petition called on the Court to direct the Election Commission of India to formulate and enforce appropriate rules aimed at regulating the promises made by political parties during election campaigns, ensuring that such promises are financially sustainable and in the public interest.

Prayers sought in the petition are as follows:

a) direct & declare that promise of irrational freebies from public fund before election unduly influences voters, disturbs level playing field, shakes roots of free and fair election & vitiates purity of election process;

b) Direct & declare that promise/distribution of private goods/services, which are not for public purposes, from public funds before election, violate Articles 14, 162, 266(3)and 282 of the Constitution

c) direct & declare that promise/distribution of irrational freebies from the public fund before election to lure voters is analogous to the Bribery and Undue Influence under BNS

d) direct the ECI to insert an additional condition: "political party shall not promise/distribute irrational freebies from the public fund before election" in Paras 6A, 6B and 6C of the Election Symbols Order 1968;

e) direct the ECI to seize election symbol/deregister the political party that promises/distributes irrational freebies from public funds. In alternative, the center should enact a law to regulate political parties;

fj pass directions as elaborated in para 50 of the present petition; and

g) pass appropriate writ/order/direction prohibiting all cash payouts targeted at any group, cluster, caste, religion, gender to discourage vote bank democracy.

h) pass appropriate writ/order/direction against the Respondent No. 2 directing it to exercise its plenary powers under Article 324 of the Constitution and pass order to ensure that political parties do not make hollow promises of freebies in the 6 months before elections are due; and

Cause Title: Pramod Kumar Jain v. Union of India & Anr. [W.P.(C) No. 210/2025; Diary No. 6317 / 2025]