Chennai, Aug 21: At a time when political establishments in the country are talking about freebies, it was a city based late young advocate S. Subramaiam Balaji who had crusaded against it.
Balaji crusaded against the populist freebies announced first by the DMK party and followed by rival AIADMK in Tamil Nadu and later by several other parties in the country.
He began his crusade petitioning the Tamil Nadu government, the Election Commission of India and then approached the Madras High Court and after that the Supreme Court.
It was a very long battle which he had lost at every step but Balaji was unfazed as he was of the firm view that private assets cannot be created out of public funds.
He had said announcing freebies is a corrupt practice under Section 123 of the Representation of People’s Act.
The apex court in 2013, while not banning freebie schemes, had ordered the Election Commission to frame guidelines for political parties to announce freebies in their election manifestos.
Balaji had strongly felt a golden opportunity was lost to reign in political parties from creating private assets out of public money to be in power.
The top court had observed that promising freebies in the election manifesto doesn’t amount to a corrupt practice under Section 123 of the Representation of Peoples Act, while ordering the Election Commission to frame guidelines for political parties.
The court gave the ruling after Balaji filed a case against the distribution of free colour television sets by the DMK to the people as part of its pre-election promise in 2006.
In an attempt to outdo the DMK, the AIADMK then under late J. Jayalalithaa promised mixers, grinders, fans and laptops and other freebies during the 2011 assembly polls.
Cheap rice, free TV, free power, free stove, cash dole promises by political parties is nothing but “bribery”, Balaji had contended.
A government cannot enrich private individuals out of consolidated funds. Giving free land or free TVs or monthly cash doles are precisely that, Balaji had said.
Responding to one of his complaints, the poll panel took the stand that a declaration of public policy or a promise of public action – like giving away free colour TVs – was an offence under Section 171-B of the IPC.
Food is one of the three essentials for a person to live. It comes under public policy. But a colour TV is not an essential item, he had said.
Taking on the high and mighty was not new to Balaji.
It was his public interest petition in the Madras High Court that brought in the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate the involvement of some high-ranking Tamil Nadu police officials in the Telgi fake stamp paper scam.
Hailing from a family of lawyers, Balaji’s father N. Sivasankaran is a High Court lawyer and his elder sister Mahalakshmi Ramaswamy is a lawyer, too.
Balaji had varied academic interests. Prior to his law degree, he had done M.Phil in Defence Studies.
Though Balaji died in 2017 at a very young age, a couple of months after meeting with a road accident and suffering head injuries, the issue he had raised and crusaded against will continue for long in the country.
The judgement in the case filed by him, is a landmark one. It is being/will be cited/quoted on this eternal topic. The young crusader had left his imprint in the legal books which not many advocates are fortunate enough to do. (IANS)
