The Supreme Court on Wednesday (January 21, 2026) drew a clear line between State functionaries splurging public money on irrational freebies and “investing” in welfare schemes for the marginalised sections.
“Distribution of State largesse to individuals at a large scale is different from investing State largesse in public welfare schemes. That distinction should be kept in mind,” Chief Justice Surya Kant observed orally.
The Supreme Court asked why there was no “dedicated diversion of revenue surplus for developmental purposes which would further the constitutional ideal of inclusivity through free medical care and education for the poor and those not in the creamy layer of the society. The State has a commitment towards this end”.
The Chief Justice said launching welfare schemes was an obligation the State had to achieve under the Directive Principles of State Policy in the Constitution.
The oral observations from the Bench, also comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi, were in response to an oral mention made by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay for early listing of a batch of petitions seeking a judicial declaration that irrational freebies offered by political parties to lure voters during poll time should be considered a “corrupt practice”.
