Freebies and the Ballot Box: Who Bears the Blame
Image credit X @arvalayam
If the Supreme Court invokes Article 142 to issue binding guidelines on freebies, backed by mandatory disclosures and fiscal impact statements, it may not stop populism altogether—but it could slow the spiral.
By P SESH KUMAR
NEW DELHI, October 1, 2025 —India’s fiscal drift into a culture of freebies is not simply the fault of politicians who announce them. Voters reward these promises at the ballot box, educated elites often stay silent, bureaucracies enable implementation, and courts hesitate to draw red lines. This is how a vicious cycle has taken root: populist parties bid higher, rivals match or exceed, voters pocket the benefits, and bureaucrats execute.
The Centre too has abandoned restraint, using its own schemes to buy political credit. With fiscal arithmetic heading into dangerous territory, the question is not just who created the mess, but who will bell the cat.
Will the bureaucracy collectively refuse to carry out fiscally reckless programmes? Will the Supreme Court finally intervene under Article 142 in the larger public interest? Or will voters themselves learn that a freebie today may mean fewer jobs and poorer services tomorrow?
Unless one of these actors breaks the cycle, the race to the bottom will continue.
Voters, Politicians, and the Silent Majority
Democracy works on demand and supply. Voters demand instant relief, political parties supply it. Free power, cash transfers, subsidised rice, or free bus rides-each comes with an immediate payoff.
For a struggling household, a ₹2,000 monthly grant is worth more than abstract promises of fiscal discipline or long-term growth. Even educated voters often succumb, either rationalising that they are “getting back their taxes” or assuming the government will find a way to pay.
This is why in state after state-from Tamil Nadu to Andhra Pradesh to Karnataka—parties that promise the most lavish freebies are returned to power. Voters are not innocent bystanders; they are participants in the bargain.
Bureaucracy: Silent Executors or Possible Circuit-Breakers?
India’s civil services are trained to maintain continuity, not to revolt. Finance secretaries may warn of fiscal risks in file notings, but once cabinet decisions are taken, the machinery shifts to execution.
Bureaucrats fear transfers, inquiries, and reputational damage if they openly resist. There are rare instances of officers quietly slowing down execution, but these are exceptions, not the rule.
For the bureaucracy as a whole to collectively refuse to implement a freebie scheme would require an unlikely unity across cadres and states. Even if possible, it would risk confrontation with elected governments, something civil servants are institutionally conditioned to avoid. In practice, bureaucracy serves as the enabler of populism rather than its brake.
Judiciary: The Last Arbiter?
The Supreme Court has already been drawn into this debate. PILs filed by petitioners such as Ashwini Upadhyay, Lok Prahari, and others challenge the constitutionality of indiscriminate freebies, arguing they distort elections and undermine financial stability.
In 2022, the Court even considered referring the matter to a larger constitutional bench. Under Article 142, the Court has extraordinary power to do “complete justice” in cases of larger public interest. Could it step in to set limits on freebie culture? Possibly—but courts traditionally tread carefully in matters of fiscal policy, wary of encroaching on legislative or executive prerogatives.
Yet if Parliament and state legislatures refuse to act, and if fiscal profligacy starts undermining the very functioning of the state, the judiciary may well feel compelled to intervene decisively.
Who Will Put Pressure?
At the moment, the only sustained pressure comes from credit rating agencies, market investors, and occasionally the Reserve Bank of India when it signals unease over rising debt. Voters are complicit, political parties are trapped in an auction, bureaucrats execute, and the Centre itself is a player. That leaves the judiciary, the CAG, and the RBI as potential counterweights.
The CAG and AJNIFM indices have created exposure, but their reports do not have teeth. The RBI has warned of fiscal risks but cannot dictate state spending. That leaves the Supreme Court as the only institution with the constitutional power and legitimacy to break the cycle-if it chooses to do so.
Course Correction Roadmap
India needs a multi-pronged course correction. In the short run, the Election Commission could require political parties to publish the true fiscal cost of their promises, something the Supreme Court has hinted at in earlier hearings.
In the medium run, legislatures must pass fiscal responsibility amendments mandating disclosure of contingent liabilities and enforceable caps on revenue expenditure.
In the long run, voters themselves must be educated—through civic campaigns, media scrutiny, and institutional honesty-that a freebie today is often funded by tomorrow’s borrowing, which comes back as higher interest payments, weaker public services, and fewer opportunities for jobs.
The way forward will not come from one actor alone. Politicians will not self-correct, voters are unlikely to resist immediate benefits, and bureaucrats cannot unite. That leaves the Court.
If the Supreme Court invokes Article 142 to issue binding guidelines on freebies, backed by mandatory disclosures and fiscal impact statements, it may not stop populism altogether—but it could slow the spiral. The question is not whether the judiciary can intervene, but whether it dares to bell the cat when no one else will.
The freebie culture is not an accident of politics; it is a conspiracy of convenience between politicians seeking votes and voters seeking benefits. Bureaucrats facilitate it, and the Centre has joined it. The deficits are funded by borrowings, interest payments are mounting, and fiscal space is shrinking.
Everyone knows the cycle is unsustainable, but no one wants to be the first to break it. The Supreme Court already has PILs before it, the constitutional power under Article 142, and the moral urgency to act. Unless the Court sets limits, India’s fiscal story will remain one of populism financed by perpetual borrowing, with the bill ultimately landing in the lap of future generations.
(This is an opinion piece, and views expressed are those of the author only)
Follow The Raisina Hills on WhatsApp, Instagram, YouTube, Facebook, and LinkedIn
About The Author
