The Supreme Court on Monday posted for final hearing a special leave petition raising an important constitutional question — whether the Tamil Nadu government can offer freebies such as colour television sets to people as part of poll promises made by a political party in its election manifesto.
A Bench of Justice P. Sathasivam and Justice B.S. Chauhan agreed to examine the legality of the scheme even as senior counsel T.R. Andhyarujina, appearing for the State, submitted that the distribution of free colour TV sets had almost been completed and the petition was politically motivated.
The Bench was hearing an SLP against a judgment of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court that upheld the Rs.2,400-crore free colour TV distribution scheme.
Under this scheme, about 53 lakh TV sets will be distributied free to the identified beneficiaries in a phased manner.
When senior counsel Arvind Dattar, appearing for the appellant, submitted that public money could not be utilised for creating private assets, Justice Sathasivam told counsel: “You must visit the villages. It is a welfare measure. Girl students are given free cycles and free uniforms.”
Mr. Dattar submitted that since Assembly elections were round the corner, political parties might even offer free computers and the issue should be decided expeditiously.
Accordingly, the Bench decided to examine the constitutional issues involved, viz. “whether the constitutional limitation contained in Article 282 (expenditure defrayable by the Union or a State out of its revenues) enabling the Union or the State government to make grants for a public purpose is not transgressed by application of State funds collected through tax payers' money for distribution of free CTVs.”)
Advocate Subramaniam Balaji of Tenkasi filed a writ petition in the High Court questioning the free CTV scheme raising various issues.
The High Court, by a judgment dated June 25, 2007, rejected the petition. The SLP is directed against this judgment.
The appellant said that he was not against free distribution of gas stoves, free saris and dhotis, free books and notebooks, free uniforms, free bus passes, free cycles etc.
He was only questioning whether in the name of public purpose, tax payers' money could be frittered away for extravagant expenditure.
In its response, the State justified the scheme and said that distribution of free CTVs was a policy decision within the constitutional provisions. TV had become one of the most basic resources of information.
Various forms of educational programmes and entertainment were all part of the positive effects that television had on society and by providing colour TV sets to the needy and the poor, the State was providing the means for right to information.
Distribution of colour TV sets with budgetary allocation would not amount to wastage of public money and would not come within the ambit of judicial review, the State said, and sought dismissal of the SLP.
