The debate over “freebies culture” in Indian politics has resurfaced sharply following recent remarks by the Supreme Court of India questioning the timing and intent behind pre-election cash transfer schemes.
On 19 February 2026, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant alongside Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi, delivered unusually forthright oral observations about the burgeoning practice of state governments announcing cash transfer schemes and other freebies just before elections.
The remarks came while hearing a writ petition filed by the Tamil Nadu Power Distribution Corporation Ltd. challenging Rule 23 of the Electricity (Amendment) Rules, 2024, which pertains to tariff determination and subsidisation.
“What Kind of Culture Are We Developing?”
The bench observed that indiscriminate giveaways and cash transfers announced in the run-up to polls risk weakening the social fabric and hampering nation-building. Chief Justice Surya Kant asked rhetorically: “What kind of culture are we developing pan-India?” and questioned the distinction between those who genuinely need state support and those who can afford to pay for services.
In a pointed critique, the Chief Justice also questioned the timing of such schemes, noting: “Why suddenly schemes are announced near elections?… It is high time that all political stalwarts, leaders, parties, and all social engineers… revisit everything.”
The bench expressed concern that blanket handouts without careful targeting could signal appeasement rather than welfare, noting that most states offering these benefits are already running revenue deficits. This, the Court warned, may divert public funds away from critical investments in infrastructure, education, health care, and employment generation.
These remarks strike at the heart of a political practice that has become increasingly common across party lines, but especially visible in recent campaigns led by the Indian National Congress and several regional opposition parties.
The Court’s observations — made during proceedings concerning subsidy and tariff regulation — were unusually direct: Why are such schemes announced just before elections? And what does this trend mean for long-term nation-building?
The Hon’ble Court’s concern is reflected in two folds:
- Fiscal Sustainability – Many states already operate under significant revenue deficits. Announcing expansive cash transfer schemes without sustainable revenue models risks deepening debt burdens.
- Distortion of Democratic Competition – When political parties promise large-scale monetary benefits immediately before polls, the line between policy and inducement becomes blurred.
Importantly, the Court did not categorically reject welfare policy. Rather, it emphasised fiscal responsibility and prudent policy design. The Court acknowledged the State’s duty to aid those truly unable to pay for essential services. However, it stressed that blanket freebies for all citizens, announced abruptly before elections without economic targeting, risk undermining both development and work culture. The judges suggested that states should prioritise creating sustainable employment avenues, rather than “directly transferring cash into the account”, which then raises questions about motivation to work.
The bench’s remarks reflect anxiety about governance being reduced to short-term electoral calculations rather than structural economic reform.
The Indian National Congress and several opposition alliances have frequently campaigned on guaranteed income schemes, free utilities, and direct cash assistance programs. These proposals are often framed as Corrective redistribution, Economic justice and Social security for marginalized communities which is just another masking for freebies.
The Supreme Court’s intervention implicitly questions whether these schemes are designed as structural poverty alleviation mechanisms or short-term electoral tools.
From a political standpoint, such messaging resonates strongly in regions with unemployment stress and income inequality. However, critics argue that repeated reliance on expansive “guarantees” without clearly articulated fiscal roadmaps raises legitimate governance concerns.
The Supreme Court’s intervention should be taken not as a dismissal of welfare, but as a call for robust, evidence-based, targeted policies that empower citizens sustainably. Welfare measures that enhance employability, reduce structural poverty, improve healthcare access, and open economic opportunities are consistent with both constitutional values and the Court’s expressed concerns.
In times of electoral fervour, political discourse should elevate discussions on economic development, employment generation, inclusive growth, and fiscal prudence, rather than reduce governance to short-term cash transfers that risk undermining the very objectives welfare seeks to advance.
The remarks signal a deeper constitutional question to ponder whether governance is being shaped by long-term developmental planning or by immediate electoral calculus.
By directly asking Senior Counsel about the timing of schemes and cautioning against a culture of indiscriminate transfers, the Chief Justice underscored that public finance decisions cannot be divorced from constitutional accountability.
The broader message emerging from the courtroom was not a rejection of welfare but a reminder that welfare must be Sustainable, Targeted. Economically reasoned and Structurally empowering
As the case progresses, the Court’s scrutiny may contribute to a more structured debate on fiscal populism, social justice, and the constitutional boundaries of electoral governance.
For now, the Supreme Court’s observations serve as a constitutional pause — urging policymakers to balance compassion with prudence, and political strategy with long-term nation-building.
