Context: In the recently concluded Maharashtra assembly elections, the landslide victory is being attributed to the implementation of Mukhyamantri Majhi Ladki Bahin Yojana which was implemented just four months ahead of polls. The scheme aimed to provide monthly financial assistance of ₹1,500 to poor women between the ages of 21 and 65 whose incomes are less than ₹2.5 lakh annually.
Critics have argued that such schemes amount to bribing voters and giving the incumbent government an unfair advantage in the elections.
Relevance of the Topic: Mains- Merits and Issues related to such schemes ahead of elections.
| Merits | Issues |
|---|---|
| Immediate Relief for Vulnerable Groups: DBT schemes, such as the Mukhyamantri Majhi Ladki Bahin Yojana, provide direct financial assistance to marginalized populations, particularly poor women, offering economic stability and enhancing their well-being. | Short-Term Gains Over Long-Term Solutions: DBTs often provide temporary relief without addressing underlying systemic issues such as unemployment, poor healthcare, and educational infrastructure. Long-term investments in these areas might be more sustainable and impactful. |
| Promotes Economic Independence for Women: By providing cash directly to women, these schemes aim to enhance their financial autonomy, potentially improving their role in household decision-making and reducing economic dependence on male family members. | Potential Displacement of Core Welfare Spending: Large allocations for cash transfers divert funds from essential services like healthcare, education, and employment schemes. E.g., Karnataka's ₹28,000 crore budget for cash transfers dwarfs the Union’s mid-day meal program budget, raising concerns about priorities. |
| Flexibility in Utilisation: Unlike targeted welfare programs (E.g., food rations or health services), cash transfers give recipients the freedom to allocate funds based on their immediate needs, whether for healthcare, education, or daily expenses. | Vulnerability to Corruption: Despite the "direct" nature of DBTs, rural banking limitations often create a reliance on intermediaries or "business correspondents" who may exploit beneficiaries. This mirrors corruption issues seen in earlier welfare programs like the Public Distribution System (PDS). |
| Simplified Delivery Mechanism: DBTs can reduce bureaucratic hurdles and corruption when implemented effectively, as funds are transferred directly to beneficiaries' bank accounts, minimizing intermediaries. | Weakening of Independent Evaluation Mechanisms: The decline of robust evaluation frameworks (such as the Planning Commission or CAG audits) reduces accountability and transparency, leading to inefficiencies and misuse of funds in DBT schemes. |
| Political Responsiveness: Social welfare programs introduced close to elections reflect a political response to popular needs. This can democratise resource distribution, ensuring that marginalised voices are heard, albeit temporarily. | Limited Impact on Structural Issues: While DBTs aim to empower women financially, they do not address deeper societal issues like gender norms or lack of employment opportunities for women leading to ultimate loss for the poor. |
| Questionable Electoral Ethics: Introducing such schemes right before elections raises concerns about their true intent. Critics argue that this could amount to "buying votes" rather than implementing genuine, long-term welfare strategies. Freebies are extended by using taxpayer money which parties use for self-branding. |
Way Forward:
- S. Subramaniam Balaji vs Govt of Tamil Nadu case, 2013: Supreme Court held that distribution of freebies shake the root of free and fair elections. The Court directed EC to frame guidelines for the same in consultation with Political parties. No manifestos during Prohibitory period i.e. 18 hrs. ending with the hour fixed for the conclusion of Poll. Manifestos should indicate ways and means to meet financial requirements for delivering the promises.
- Ashwani Kumar vs Union of India, 2019: A petition was filed urging the apex court to declare that the promise or distribution of private goods or services from public funds (which are not for public purposes) before the elections as violative of Article 14.
- The Finance Commission (while recommending allocations to the States) can consider the debts of each individual States and examine whether offers of freebies would be viable for them.
- The Central Board of Indirect taxes and Customs has come out with detailed instructions for tax officers to implement the directions of the Election Commission with regard to the use of freebies, illicit cash, liquor and drugs to lure voters, and asked them to share information with other enforcement agencies.
- Voter Training and awareness: Social campaigns, voter literacy programs, civil society initiatives, and media intervention can empower voters to make rational and ethical choices.