SC slams freebies culture, says states should open avenues for employment

The Supreme Court on Thursday delivered sharp observations against the growing culture of freebies, warning that indiscriminate welfare schemes could hamper economic development, strain public finances and weaken the country’s work ethic. The court, however, agreed to examine the defence put forward by the Tamil Nadu Power Distribution Corporation Limited, which has proposed to provide free electricity to all consumers , irrespective of their financial status.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi made the remarks while hearing the utility’s plea challenging a provision of the Electricity Amendment Rules, 2024 . The firm argued that the rules restrict the state’s policy space in extending welfare benefits and managing subsidies.

“Most of the states in the country are revenue deficit states and yet they are offering such freebies,” the bench observed, adding that economic development gets hampered when resources are diverted towards largesse instead of productive investment. Questioning the rationale behind universal benefits, the Chief Justice asked, “What kind of culture are we developing in India? It is understandable if you want to support those who are incapable of paying. But without drawing a distinction between those who can afford and those who cannot, will it not amount to an appeasing policy ?”

The court stressed that states should focus on employment generation and long-term development. “If you start giving free food, free cycles and free electricity, who will work and what will happen to the work culture ?” the bench remarked, noting that public spending was increasingly confined to paying salaries and distributing freebies rather than funding infrastructure and growth.

Defending its proposal, the Tamil Nadu power utility submitted that free electricity formed part of the state’s broader social welfare framework aimed at protecting households, small consumers and vulnerable sections from rising living costs. It also challenged the amended rules, contending that they curtailed the state’s autonomy in framing subsidy policies.

The Supreme Court issued notice to the Centre and other stakeholders and said it would examine both the constitutional validity of the rules and the economic implications of universal power subsidies.