Read Time: 07 minutes
Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, the ruling party from Tamil Nadu, has filed an impleadment application before the Supreme Court, opposing the plea against freebies, stating that the scope of a “freebie” is very wide and a welfare scheme introduced by a State Government cannot be judged to be classified as a freebie.
While arguing that there is no straight jacket formula which could be applied to decide what scheme could be considered as a freebie, the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) has filed an impleadment application before the Supreme Court in the plea seeking de-registration of political parties promising ‘Irrational Freebies’ for voters from public funds.
DMK has sought impleadment as a party respondent in the petition filed by Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay.
The plea states that the Constitution empowers the State Governments under the Concurrent and State Lists to promulgate welfare schemes, therefore, the term “freebies” cannot be interpreted in such a way which interferes with the State’s competence under the Schedule VII.
Filed through RS Bharathi, MP, Rajya Sabha, the application reads that the political party has introduced various welfare schemes for the people of Tamil Nadu such as rice at Re.1/kg, free distribution of colour television sets to poor households, free bus passes to women amongst others for uplifting the poor households.
DMK argues that such welfare schemes have been promulgated under Directive Principles of State Policy enshrined under the Articles 36-51 of the Constitution.
Further arguing that the scope of a “freebie” is very wide, DMK submits that only a welfare scheme introduced by a State Government cannot be judged to be classified as a freebie.
"The ruling government at the Union giving tax holidays to foreign companies, waiver of bad loans of influential industrialists, granting crucial contracts to favoured conglomerates etc. also have to be considered and cannot be left untouched...", the application adds.
Submitting that Schemes such as free electricity can have a multi-dimensional effect to a poor household, the IA submits,
"...a welfare scheme providing a free service are introduced with an intent to secure a social order and economic justice under Article 38 to minimise the inequalities in income, status, facilities and opportunities. In no imaginable reality, it could be construed as a “freebie”. Such schemes have been introduced in order to provide basic necessities which the poor households cannot afford. They cannot be imputed to be luxuries."
The political party further contends that a welfare scheme can have a wide reach and multiple intentions behind its introduction and the cascading effect arising from it cannot be defined in a restrictive meaning as a freebie.
DMK adds that welfare schemes promulgated are policy matters of the Government which are barred from judicial review.
The application thus states that any order passed by the Supreme Court may have a cascading effect and affect the governance at the grass root level. hence, it is imperative to implead DMK so that the necessary assistance may be given on the issue.
Notably, another application of intervention has been filed by the General Secretary, M.P Mahila Congress, Dr. Jaya Thakur before the Supreme Court in the matter stating that Thakur has a strong faith in democracy, and according to our Constitutional Doctrine, ruling parties are duty bound to frame policies for the welfare and upliftment of the weaker sections, so they are rightly giving subsidies and cannot be called freebies.
The Supreme Court issued a notice in the plea by Upadhyay in January 2022.
Moreover, recently, the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) also filed an application of intervention contending that this Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is a “non-partisan litigation” and alleged petitioner Ashwini Upadhyay’s strong ties to the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).
Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs. Union of India & Anr.
Please Login or Register
