On January 21, 2026, the Supreme Court sharply distinguished between State spending on welfare schemes and reckless freebies to lure voters. Chief Justice Surya Kant said, “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.” The Court questioned why revenue surplus was not dedicated to developmental purposes like free medical care and education for the poor. "The State has a commitment towards this end," the Chief Justice added. This remark came during a mention by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, who urged an early hearing on petitions seeking to declare election freebies as “corrupt practice.” Upadhyay highlighted rising national debt, from ₹1.5 lakh crore to ₹2.5 lakh crore, yet the State continues to offer freebies before elections. “This is a very, very important matter,” Chief Justice Kant responded, agreeing to list the case early. Earlier, a Bench led by Justice B.R. Gavai asked if endless freebies trap the poor in dependence, blocking their progress. The Court expressed concern about political parties draining State finances by fulfilling “wild” promises with public money. Senior advocate Vijay Hansaria told the Court it must decide if freebies fall under “corrupt practice” as per Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Advocate Arvind Datar argued freebies should be treated as government expenditure under Article 282. Advocate Prashant Bhushan clarified that legitimate freebies differ from discriminatory ones. For example, wiping out willful defaulter debts is an illegitimate freebie, while benefits to one religious community count as discriminatory. Over the years, the Court has moved away from its 2013 stance that election manifesto promises are not “corrupt practice.” This shift indicates rising judicial scrutiny on election freebies.