The Supreme Court made several sharp comments on Thursday (Feb 19, 2026) regarding the indiscriminate distribution of largesse to voters undermining the state’s primary responsibility of providing collective goods and services and fulfilling genuine welfare obligations. The Chief Justice wisely refrained from giving a direction, saying the Court did not want to "cross our limitations and comment or decide on the purpose of a welfare scheme or how it should be given".

This restraint and refusal to intervene judicially is constitutionally sound and enhances the Court's credibility. At the same time, the Court gave expression to the anguish and concern most thinking citizens feel about fiscal profligacy and unchecked populism at the cost of core functions of the state and imperatives of investment and economic growth. This gives us an opportunity to examine the issue in a dispassionate and non-partisan manner and arrive at a mature consensus to protect the future.

Unchecked populism and electoral promises

It would be unwise and unproductive to tell political parties what kind of electoral promises they should make. But there is a line that is sometimes crossed. The DMK’s promise of free colour TVs in the run-up to the Tamil Nadu Assembly election in 2006 is one such case. The matter went to the Supreme Court, and in 2013, the Court directed the Election Commission, in the absence of legislation, to frame guidelines regarding electoral promises under Article 324 in consultation with recognised political parties and........

© Free Press Journal