Programs for the socio-economic well-being of the underprivileged masses cannot be called “freebies,” as mentioned by the Aam Aadmi party in an affidavit filed with the Supreme Court. The party denied the claim of the practice of soliciting votes by promising “freebies”.
In its request for intervention, the party that governs the Delhi metropolitan area and Punjab province questioned the credibility of petitioner Ashwini Upadhyay, submitting the request without any affiliation with the Bharatiya Janata Party, arguing that Upadhyay had previously Court tried for frivolous filing of his PIL.
The AAP states that petitioners are using public interest litigation to camouflage thinly veiled attempts to advance certain political agendas and that the ideological underpinnings of the petition are very clear.
The defending party argued that the petitioner was only trying to block the promise of a free gift and to prevent the actual delivery of such promise, and therefore his concerns were financial. It states that the petition, rather than a burden, was a “process of political interest”.
On the merits of the plea, the AAP states that the constitution’s guiding principle for national policy is that states should pursue socialist, welfare-oriented programs to create a just society with equal access for all.
Some of the examples of a welfare program are quoted as follows:
(a) Construction and maintenance of canteens to provide free or subsidized prepared meals to the working poor;
(b) Construction and maintenance of shelters and shelters for the poor;
(c) Provide potable water and other domestic free or subsidized drinking water up to a specified amount; i.e. Provide free or subsidized electricity for self-consumption so that small households are not overloaded;
(d) Providing free or subsidized basic medical care, as well as advanced medical care;
(e) Provide free or subsidized skills and vocational training programs to empower young people and reduce unemployment;
(f) Providing free or subsidized food and other food to parts of society that cannot afford it.
(g)Provide lunch programs in public schools to promote school attendance and improve nutrition for children;
(h) Provide free or subsidized public transport, especially for women and other groups who need better representation in their communities
(i) Providing direct cash transfers to vulnerable groups such as B. Young students in typically underrepresented classes
(j) Secure the livelihoods of those who are unemployed for various structural reasons.
(k) Providing fixed assets such as sewing machines and bicycles to women and girls so that they can earn a living and educate themselves;
The party described such measures as transforming the lives of vulnerable segments of society and “unequally positioned people”. In many developed countries, especially Scandinavian countries, socialist and socialist development models are said to have significantly improved national performance across multiple progress markers.
The real discussion of “freebies” should begin with the perks given to the political class, bureaucrats, and big business, not the welfare system given to the vulnerable. Ministers, MPs, and MLAs get free housing and other perks in states and capitals. If a court wishes to consider this issue, it must assess the costs incurred by government subsidies to political classes and large corporations.
On August 3, a jury chaired by the chief justice of India’s Supreme Court ruled that the ‘gift’ issue was a serious one and set up a panel of experts to investigate the matter. said there was a need. The bank suggested the panel of experts could include representatives from central and state government opposition parties, the Indian Electoral Commission, the Finance Commission, the Reserve Bank of India, NIT Aayog and others.