When welfare turns into freebies

Recently, the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu announced `5,000 in 1.31 crore women’s accounts. In January 2026, the Supreme Court of India drew a clear line of demarcation for the first time between political freebies and welfare provisions. Speaking in response to a petition by Ashwini Kumar Upadhyaya, Chief Justice Surya Kant held that freebies could not be equated with welfare largesse by the state. The Supreme Court was found shifting its stance from the earlier judgement in the S Subramaniam Balaji versus Tamil Nadu case in 2013, which held that electoral promises in the form of freebies did not amount to bribery under Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

In this petition, the question before the Court was whether untenable electoral promises made by various political parties during elections to lure voters amounted to bribery or not. Could these be allowed for being related to the Directive Principles of State Policy and falling under the category of ‘public purpose’? This issue was further reviewed in a PIL in support of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s remark on ‘revadi culture’. Fiscal prudence demands responsible management of government finances, ensuring sustainability and avoidance of excessive deficits. Earlier, in advanced economies, social development was seen as an end in itself and the state was viewed as an agent of social responsibility. The focus was on resource inputs as a symbol of progress and commitment, often to the neglect of outputs. Modern states in developing countries are required to promote equity, fairness and justice on the one hand, and maintain high standards of efficiency, accountability and democracy on the other. This has led to pulls in opposite directions.

In fact, we find convergence of welfare goals in both the Global North and Global South. Despite different ideologies and worldviews, rulers are willing to assist the elderly and needy. Nobody wants to alienate vast majorities in order to retain power. Consequently, there has been a shift in paradigm from ‘social security’ to ‘social insurance, social assistance and social protection’ worldwide. In India, many freebies and welfare benefits are announced just before elections by both central and state governments, often without protection or accountability. Most schemes are eulogised and personalised to reap votes without mentioning the source from which such expenditure would be met. The term ‘freebie’ is used in electoral politics in the name of welfare benefits because a very thin line exists between the two. Whereas freebies are seen as one-time assistance to gain immediate electoral support, welfare measures aim at equitable and sustainable development through properly designed socio-economic policy.

Freebies are viewed as politically motivated interventions to reap immediate benefits in terms of votes without addressing the underlying causes of socio-economic distress. These are not sustainable due to the financial burden, resulting in a rise in the fiscal deficit in the long run. Unlike welfare benefits that seek to lift recipients out of poverty, freebies are likely to inculcate a dependency culture. Most recipients are unaware that expenditure on free electricity, free bus rides for women, subsidised food, cycles or laptops is met from their own tax money.

Unlike welfare measures, freebies do not aim at long-term socio-economic development of marginalised sections of society. While the public sees freebies as a quick fix for immediate problems, welfare policies aim at structural changes rather than short-term gratification. Welfare provisions require adequate funding, whereas freebies are often pre-election promises made by political parties in manifestos simply to lure swing voters.

According to the Reserve Bank of India, a freebie is defined as a public welfare measure provided free of charge, such as electricity, water, public transport, farm loan waivers or subsidies. However, in practice, it remains difficult to differentiate between freebies and welfare measures. All freebies are not welfare measures and vice versa. Welfare expenditure through public funding is justified as appropriate and desirable for uplifting the poor and needy, whereas expenditure on freebies is often considered irrational. Despite a national debt nearing `200 lakh crore, many political parties splurged public funds on gold chains, TVs, cash and liquor during elections prior to 2014. In 2023-24, the top 11 states spent about `4 lakh crore (1.7 per cent of their GDP) on social welfare, including direct cash transfers and distribution of goods. Ambivalence persists due to the absence of a precise definition.

Today, clientelist politics has given rise to populism, replacing the state-based welfare model with a patronage model. Drastic measures are required to safeguard India’s electoral democracy. The state must prioritise welfare schemes, ensure efficient allocation of resources, strengthen fiscal management, encourage informed decision-making, and engage civil society. This calls for renewed democratic consensus, recognising that the prevalence of freebies reflects failed politics and vulnerable voters rather than genuine welfarism.

The writer is an educationist, former Director, University of Delhi, and author of Happiness and Beyond; views are personal