The growing trend of offering freebies in Indian elections, like free electricity and food grains, raises significant concerns about fiscal sustainability and long-term development. While such promises temporarily alleviate economic strain for low-income groups, they strain government finances, crowd out essential investments, and increase public debt. Misallocation of resources undermines critical sectors like healthcare, education, and infrastructure. Policymakers must prioritize long-term strategies for sustainable growth, job creation, and fiscal responsibility over short-term electoral gains to ensure India's economic stability and prosperity.

 to voters has emerged as one of the main concerns of Indian electoral politics. While aiming to achieve victory, political parties have already made outrageous promises of free goods and services (e.g., electricity, food grains, water, and even laptops free of charge). Although such promises may initially draw voters to a party, the ultimate economic impact of such policies is today a matter of fierce argument among economists and politicians.

From a historical perspective, the greater the number of attendees a party can muster on the back of such pledges, the greater the chances of electoral victory. However, this paradigm also favors short-term political expediency over long-term economic sustainability. Historically, the distribution of freebies has had mixed results. Although they may temporarily reduce the economic strain on low-income populations (for example, by distributing food grains or subsidized transport), this relief invariably leads to an inefficient use of resources. The 

nature of these distributions tends to favour wealthier individuals, while the most vulnerable segments of society, such as slum dwellers or those living on footpaths, are left out of these benefits. For example, electricity subsidies in Delhi trickle down to richer beneficiaries but are not passed on by landlords to poor tenants who rent the houses, either at all or only very incrementally.

Economists and authorities have consistently disapproved of the practice of providing free wares, noting worries about fiscal soundness. Atop the opposition to freebies is the fact that they waste an enormous amount of resources. However, for example, although free food grains/electricity might help reduce short-term financial distress for families, these measures have the consequence of abstracting away important resources more effectively, through the development of infrastructure, social welfare, or other investments required in the long run.

Furthermore, according to much of the economic 

, such subsidies not only contribute to a worse overall quality of life but also cause a money transfer to an individual from society, thereby causing a perverse subsidy. Resources that could be used to make healthcare, education, and infrastructure better are being squandered on short-term election themes. In a country like India, where the tax-to-GDP ratio is already lower than many other nations, fulfilling these promises becomes a severe burden on state and national finances.

 of freebies on government finances is significant. Estimates indicate that spending on freebies can vary from 0.1% to 2.7% of a state's Gross State Domestic Product (GSDP). Some states, such as Punjab or Delhi, for example, provide 300 or 200 units free of electricity per month, respectively, while they create burdensome debt into their overstretched finances. Such spending comes at the cost of fiscal sustainability, as these states are often forced to borrow heavily to finance these promises. Punjab's plea for ₹50,000 crore special package is a clear articulation of the fiscal difficulties infocrats unleashed by limitless freebies.

The COVID-19 pandemic only worsened the budget stress on state governments, already under pressure due to increasing subsidy pressures. The Reserve Bank of India (

) in its annual report warned that the increasing cost of non-merit freebies was putting a strain on the state finances. The ballooning overdue of state power distribution companies (discoms) is a significant example of how subsidies and freebies can lead to 

. The debt-to-GSDP ratio is another indicator of fiscal strain. Even in states, like Rajasthan, West Bengal, Punjab, and Kerala, revenue expenditure occupies more than 90% of state expenditure, and hardly any space is available for capital investments. Debt-to-GSDP ratios for certain states, especially in Punjab, are predicted to exceed 45% by 2026-2027. This increasing debt burden will just worsen their budgetary standings, making them susceptible to financial crises such as the one experienced in their neighboring countries, for example, Sri Lanka

 in Sri Lanka is a cautionary tale about the risks of fiscal irresponsibility and high levels of public debt. The country's unsustainable debt burden, partly driven by populist policies, ultimately led to a collapse of its economy. Although the crisis is not as deep in India there are concerns around the long-term fiscal and macroeconomic stability arising from the uncontrolled free buddy distribution pattern.

The practice of giving things away has established an unstable tension between good accounting and winning an election. Freebies may provide short-term (but only) political benefits but, in the long run, they inevitably hinder development. Government deficits rise because of fulfilling these promises, leading to higher debt levels that crowd out spending on essential services like healthcare, education, and infrastructure. For example, the provision of free electricity in Punjab and Delhi has contributed to ballooning 

, which has implications for future development projects. Rather than putting money into infrastructure or employment creation programs, governments have to make distributions in favor of fulfilling these short-term campaign commitments.

Consequently, future generations' quality of life could be compromised because there isn't enough investment in the main pillars of society such as manufacturing and agriculture. The uncontrolled allocation of subsidies also leads to the misallocation of expenditure priorities. For instance, subsidies in the agricultural sector, which are aimed at providing short-term relief to farmers, often lead to environmentally unsustainable practices. For this reason, governments are, as a result, running off from long-term growth, which includes strengthening of labour-intensive industry, and creating the best employment opportunities. This is something governments should be focussing on.

Although it may be argued that the provision of basic goods and services, such as health care, education, and food security, is needed for social welfare, indiscriminate provision of free goods and services is desirable. These freebies put pressure on the government's finances, shift expenditure priorities, and ultimately block long-run growth. Policymakers are in a bind in balancing the provision of critical welfare services with fiscal responsibility. Rather than give short-term electoral courtesies in the form of freebies, political parties should target long-term policy directions for the development of the economy, job creation, and social welfare. Taxation, public debt management, and effective use of public resources require reforms to achieve fiscal sustainability and macroeconomic stability.

In the context of India's economy expanding, both central and state authorities need to pay attention to building a sustainable fiscal structure that can be leveraged for long-term development. Only through enlightened fiscal 

 can India fulfill its development aspirations and deliver a better quality of life to all its people as an immediate or future reality. Although freebies can attract short-term political popularity, their long-run economic consequences are seriously adverse to the country's fiscal well-being and progress. Governments must shift their focus from offering short-term benefits to investing in sustainable, long-term growth that benefits all segments of society.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the author. They do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of The Jamia Review or its members.

The Impact of Freebies in Electoral Politics and Fiscal Responsibility

Today’s collegium consists of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and the four most senior Supreme Court judges. However, this setup is not explicitly provided in the Constitution. Chapter IV of the Constitution does outline the appointment process, stating that SC judges shall be appointed by the President in consultation with the CJI. This consultation, however, is not binding on the President, leaving room for acceptance or rejection in the national interest. This provision allowed for executive discretion, which was later misused during India’s 

 government, these provisions were exploited, leading to the appointment of two CJIs who did not meet the seniority criteria, bypassing more qualified judges. These irregularities led to significant backlash, with one judge resigning in protest. The Supreme Court responded by claiming authority over judicial appointments, marking the beginning of the collegium’s evolution. Over time, this authority was refined, ultimately limiting the executive’s role. Today, if the government returns a recommendation for reconsideration and the collegium reaffirms it, the government is constitutionally bound to comply, with further rejection considered contempt of court.

Criteria for Appointments: Merit, Seniority, and Inclusion

The collegium’s criteria for appointments to HCs and the SC are centred on merit, seniority, and diversity. Candidates for HC judgeships require a minimum of ten years of practice in the High Courts or equivalent experience as trial court judges. Appointments to the SC usually involve elevating HC chief justices, with seniority and experience playing a crucial role. The CJI is chosen based on seniority, determined by the date of elevation to the Supreme Court among current judges.

, the current CJI, has emphasised these criteria, noting that in addition to merit and seniority, the collegium considers inclusivity regarding caste, community, and gender. However, this claim has faced criticism. Despite being part of the collegium for over four years, Justice Chandrachud did not appoint a single female HC judge to the SC during his tenure. His recommendation of 

an openly gay senior advocate, was also denied by the government, even though the SC had previously decriminalised homosexuality. This disconnect between stated ideals and practice raises questions about the effectiveness of these criteria.

Allegations of Nepotism and Transparency Concerns

The collegium has been criticised for nepotism and lack of transparency. Familial ties have played a significant role in the appointments of certain judges, raising questions about impartiality. For instance, 

 the longest-serving CJI in history, recommended 

 for elevation to the SC. Later, Justice Kirpal recommended the elevation of D.Y. Chandrachud, Y.V. Chandrachud's son, to the Bombay HC. Similarly, D.Y. Chandrachud recommended the son of B.N. Kirpal, further suggesting nepotistic practices within the collegium.

According to a report from a Mumbai-based legal research group, approximately 50% of HC judges come from families with senior judicial ties. With around 13 lakh advocates in India and 1,100 posts for HC judges (900 temporary and 200 permanent), this concentration of appointments among 250–300 families raises concerns about fairness and representation. 

Former Union Minister of State for HRD Upendra Kushwaha

 and other advocates have echoed these concerns, indicating systemic favouritism.

Further insights into this opaque process were shared in interviews by former SC judges with 

 magazine. They revealed that collegium discussions are often informal, lacking documented records and objective criteria. Described as a 

 these appointments, critics argue, reflect a

 notably claimed that half of the 16 CJIs were corrupt. Although he faced a contempt case for this, he defended his statement with 500 pages of evidence. The SC ultimately quashed the case but issued a symbolic fine, highlighting the judiciary’s discomfort with open criticism.

The NJAC: A Proposed Alternative for Transparency

National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Bill

 to bring more transparency to judicial appointments. The NJAC proposed a six-member commission comprising the CJI, two senior-most SC judges, the Law Minister, and two eminent persons. This body was meant to replace the collegium and curb executive overreach while increasing accountability. However, the Supreme Court struck down the NJAC in 2015, asserting that it could compromise judicial independence by involving the government too directly in appointments. This decision, perceived by some as an overreach by the judiciary, reignited the debate over the need for a more balanced approach to appointments.

The Debate on Judicial Independence and Accountability

Supporters of the collegium argue that it safeguards judicial independence by keeping the appointment process insulated from political influence. However, critics contend that its lack of transparency, allegations of nepotism, and inconsistent promotion of inclusivity undermine public trust. 

, one of the architects of the Constitution, had expressed concerns about giving excessive authority to the CJI in appointments, warning that the position, though distinguished, could still be subject to personal biases. He believed the 

 rather than the judiciary alone, should hold the ultimate authority over appointments, lest power be concentrated among a select few.

While the collegium system has played a role in preserving judicial independence, its drawbacks indicate a need for reform. Addressing issues of transparency, nepotism, and accountability without undermining independence will be essential for the judiciary’s future. Reforms might involve setting objective criteria, maintaining documentation of deliberations, and fostering greater diversity within the judiciary. As debates around the collegium and judicial independence continue, it is clear that India's judiciary must find a balanced approach that upholds constitutional ideals while adapting to contemporary needs.

The collegium system should be abolished, and a proper mechanism for appointing judges in the High Courts and Supreme Court should be established. Similar to the selection process for civil services, a commission for judicial appointments should be created to ensure greater transparency and accountability. This would help end the vicious cycle of nepotism in the Indian judicial system, making it more effective and inclusive. People from diverse communities and castes should be included, fostering a judiciary that better 

Unpacking the Collegium System: The Debate Over Judicial Appointments in India

On October 16, 2024, the Lady Justice statue underwent modifications: the blindfold was removed, and the sword in her left hand was replaced with the ‘Constitution of India’. 

, revealed the new structure. Sources say the reason behind these changes is to move away from the colonial legacy that still burdens India’s judicial system. Chandrachud also mentioned that the sword symbolizes violence, and laws are not blind; they see everyone equally. Lady Justice was also given Indian traditional touches, with her western coat replaced by a saree.

But are judicial systems truly evolving from their colonial legacy?

The motive behind these changes does not seem to be about bringing revolutionary improvements. Instead, they appear more suited for news headlines than for benefitting citizens. The Indian judiciary is still rooted in 

. The government and judicial institutions do not seem inclined to remove these colonial relics. English common laws like the 

 and exceptions to marital rape are still in use, and the government continues to oppose changes to these laws.

India has a serious problem with case pendency. The 

 has around 80,000 pending cases, while district and high courts have a staggering 40 million cases awaiting resolution. We truly need reform to address this backlog and deliver justice more efficiently. Recently, the Supreme Court dismissed a PIL that sought to establish regional benches of the Supreme Court, a move that could have eased the burden of accessibility to justice. The Indian government provides food grains to 80 million people, but the accessibility of justice remains far from easy for the common people. This raises questions about the commitment to delivering justice by not establishing regional Supreme Court benches.

Another example of the judiciary’s reluctance for true reform is the dismissal of a PIL that aimed to clear all pending cases within 11 months. This is yet another pseudo-example of an evolving judicial system. The Collegium system, which recommends the appointment of judges to high courts and the Supreme Court, often faces long delays—sometimes as much as six months—which further contributes to the growing backlog of cases. In a recent address to the district court judge summit, the 

 remarked that "Black Coat Syndrome" should not deter common people from seeking justice. Justice, he said, must be delivered without delay. However, this is contradictory, as the President himself holds up the recommendations of the Collegium for months.

The UAPA Act is another colonial law that continues to be used by the government. This law has been used to suppress voices, especially among academicians, students, and activists who speak out for freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. These same tactics were used by colonial powers to imprison freedom fighters without trial. Reform is desperately needed here.

 (IPC) of 1860, but this was arguably the worst reform in Indian judicial history. The only real change was a rearrangement of the section numbers related to crimes, while the IPC 1860 is still largely in use. The BNS needs to be drafted following constitutional provisions, ensuring that citizens’ rights and freedoms are protected. The unit points system at the lower court level is also flawed. This system, which rewards judges based on the number of cases they dispose of, incentivizes them to prioritise simpler cases over more complex ones. As a result, victims of complex cases are left with constant adjournments and true justice is delayed. This system needs reform.

Another colonial relic that the government and courts resist changing is the marital rape exception. Originating from the Doctrine of Coverture in English common law, this provision views a married woman’s legal existence as merged with her husband’s. The exception to Section 375 of the IPC 1860, now reflected in Section 63 of the BNS, grants legal immunity to husbands for sexual acts with their wives, provided the wife is not under 18 years old. This provision is contradictory, as 18 is also the legal age for marriage, and it infringes upon constitutional rights.

These colonial-era provisions violate Article 14 (the right to equality), as they discriminate between married and unmarried women regarding protection against non-consensual sex. They also violate Article 15(1) (the right to non-discrimination) and Article 21 (the right to privacy and bodily integrity), as they infringe upon a woman’s autonomy over her body.

The Centre has opposed striking down the marital rape exception, arguing that it could lead to false accusations. It also argues that marriage creates reasonable expectations of sexual access, though it acknowledges that consent should not be violated. However, this indirectly endorses the colonial Doctrine of Coverture.

These examples prove that recent moves in the judiciary are not about eliminating colonial legacies but rather about creating a narrative that suggests the judiciary is evolving. True reform should include establishing regional Supreme Court benches to make justice more accessible, reducing case pendency, and ensuring that justice is affordable to the poorest citizens. The judiciary must also strike down outdated laws like the UAPA and marital rape exceptions if it genuinely wishes to reform itself.

Changing The Symbols But Not The Colonial Laws

The Ministry of Minority affairs has introduced a Bill to change the structure of the current Waqf Board. The Bill presents various new propositions which have raised concerns from the opposition party about its implications and the possible violation of constitutional rights. The Bill is now referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee with 31 members for further suggestions and opinions.

During the recent budget session of the Parliament, the 

Minister of Minority Affairs Kiren Rijiju

 tabled a bill that recommends 40 changes to the present structure or act of the 

. Waqf Board is a statutory body which is responsible for managing and protecting 

, that is, properties that are typically owned by Muslims for charitable, educational or religious purposes. Following strong backlash from opposition party members, the bill was referred to a J

 for review. The JPC, consisting of 31 members (10 from the 

), is not bound to the government and can either accept or reject the suggestions in the bill. The JPC is often referred to as a mini-parliament.

During the debate on the bill, opposition members raised concerns about the freedom of practice and propagation of religion under 

, and the protection of interests of minorities under 

, which states that the state should secure a social order for the promotion of the welfare of the people. In response, the Minister of Minority Affairs stated that the 

 report had suggested the changes, which the 

 did not address due to their vote bank politics. However, the Sachar Committee report was transiently presented by the Ministry of Minority Affairs in Parliament.

The Sachar Committee report suggested several changes:

s: Many states have not framed Waqf Rules even after eleven years since the 

 was enacted, leading to non-implementation, corruption, and lack of accountability. The report recommends regular refresher training courses for the staff of 

: The report suggests empowering state Waqf Boards to deal with the removal of encroachments on Waqf properties. It recommends amending Section 83 (4) to specify that the 

 should have a full-time presiding officer appointed exclusively for Waqf purposes, with the power to provide interim relief and award damages.

Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act

: The report recommends treating all Waqfs notified in the Gazette as public premises. Encroachments on these properties should be treated like encroachments on government land, and the 

Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971

 should be applied to remove encroachments and recover arrears of rent at market rates as arrears of land revenue.

: The report suggests amending various acts, including the 

Agricultural Land Ceilings Act, Urban Land Ceiling Act,

, to facilitate the functioning of Waqfs without hurting their public objectives.

: According to the bill, a person who has been practicing Islam for at least five years can only declare a Waqf. It clarifies that the person must own the property being declared and removes Waqf by user. It also ensures that 

 must not deny inheritance rights to the donor’s heirs, including women heirs.

 According to the bill, the property will cease to be a Waqf if it belongs to the government. The area 

 will determine ownership in case of uncertainty and submit a report to the state government.

: Waqf Board’s power to inquire and determine if a property is a Waqf is removed in the bill.

: The bill empowers Collectors to conduct the survey of Waqf properties instead of appointing a 

: The bill provides that two members of the Central Waqf Council must be non-Muslims and removes the requirement for MPs, former judges, and eminent persons to be Muslims.

: The bill empowers the state government to nominate one person from each electoral college to the Board, who need not be Muslims. It also includes provisions for representation from 

Shias, Sunnis, Backward classes of Muslims, Bohra, and Agakhani

: The bill removes the requirement for a person knowledgeable in Muslim law to be a Tribunal member and instead includes a current or former District Court judge and a current or former officer of the rank of joint secretary to the state government.

: The bill allows Tribunal orders to be appealed in the High Court within 90 days.

: The bill empowers the central government to make rules regarding the registration, publication of accounts, and publication of proceedings of Waqf Boards. It also allows the central government to audit Waqf accounts through the CAG or a designated officer.

: The bill allows establishing separate Waqf Boards for Aghakhani and Bohra sects.

The Waqf Board is legally responsible for managing Waqf properties. It includes members who are nominated to oversee the appointment of custodians to ensure that the proceeds are used as intended. These properties are managed by a 

 appointed by a competent authority. India has had a legal regime for the governance of Waqf properties since 1913, with the 

 defining Waqf as the permanent dedication of any property by a person professing the Mussalman faith for religious, pious, or charitable purposes.

There have been numerous instances of encroachment on Waqf properties by the government and individuals. For example, the 

 encroached on thousands of acres of land and gave it to the 

 without compensation to the Waqf Board. The Waqf Tribunal and the High Court upheld a stay on the transfer of ownership, and the case is now pending in the 

. In Delhi, around 123 high-revenue generating properties of the Waqf Board have been encroached upon by the government and individuals, with cases pending in various courts. According to 

, more than 17,000 Waqf properties have been encroached upon across the country, with an estimated value of around 1 lakh crore.

There is a misconception propagated by right-wing influencers and 

 that the Waqf Tribunal has unlimited power to grab any property by claiming it as Waqf. However, this is incorrect, as there are no such provisions in any act related to the Waqf Board. The limited powers of the Waqf board is demonstrated by the fact that many of its decisions are pending in the High Court and the Supreme Court.

The bill presented in Parliament seems influenced by social media narratives rather than factual legal provisions. The proposed changes could potentially marginalize minority communities by restricting their educational and vocational opportunities provided by the Waqf Board. It is crucial to ensure that any amendments to the Waqf Act and related legislation uphold the principles of justice and equality, protecting the rights and interests of all communities.

Mohammad Hesham Atik is a student pursuing B.A. (H) Psychology from 

This is a guest entry written for The Jamia Review.

Articles by Mohammad Hesham Atik

The Impact of Freebies in Electoral Politics and Fiscal Responsibility

Unpacking the Collegium System: The Debate Over Judicial Appointments in India

Changing The Symbols But Not The Colonial Laws

Understanding the Impact and Implementation of the Waqf Bill: Legal and Social Perspectives

The Impact of Freebies in Electoral Politics and Fiscal Responsibility

Unpacking the Collegium System: The Debate Over Judicial Appointments in India

Changing The Symbols But Not The Colonial Laws

Understanding the Impact and Implementation of the Waqf Bill: Legal and Social Perspectives