In Brief
A batch of writ petitions challenged pre-election promises of free goods ('freebies') made by political parties, claiming such promises harm electoral fairness and fiscal responsibility. The petitioners sought judicial intervention to restrict such electoral pledges. The Supreme Court recognized the genuine concern about fiscal mismanagement while holding that the electorate ultimately decides which party to vote for based on promises and performance. The Court refrained from issuing direct orders, acknowledging it lacks jurisdiction over policy and fiscal matters. It referred the matter to a three-judge bench to reconsider whether such promises constitute corrupt practices under electoral law.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.