IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  WRIT JURISDICTION IA No……….…. OF 2022 IN  WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 43/2022

 

IN THE MATTER OF :

ASHWINI UPADHYAY Versus.	….PETITIONER
UNION OF INDIA & Ors.	….RESPONDENT
AND IN THE MATTER OF:- DRAVIDA MUNNETRA KAZHAGAM	…APPLICANT

 

 

INDEX

S.NO.	PARTICULARS	PAGES
1.	I.A. NO.                  OF 2022 APPLICATION FOR IMPLEADMENT WITH AFFIDAVIT	1 – 109

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER:                       R.NEDUMARAN

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  WRIT JURISDICTION IA No………. OF 2022 IN  WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 43/2022

 

IN THE MATTER OF:-

ASHWINI UPADHYAY	Vs.	….PETITIONER
UNION OF INDIA & Ors.		….RESPONDENT
AND IN THE MATTER OF:-   DRAVIDA MUNNETRA KAZHAGAM THROUGH RS Bharathi S/o Shri D.J. Raman, MP, Rajya Sabha Organizing Secretary, DRAVIDA MUNNETRA KAZHAGAM, Door No.18, 29th Street, Thillai Ganga Nagar, Naganallur, Chennai 600061		…APPLICANT

 

APPLICATION FOR IMPLEADMENT

TO,

THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND

HIS COMPANION JUDGES OF THE SUPREME COURT

THE HUMBLE APPLICATION OF

THE APPLICANT ABOVE NAMED

 

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH: 

 

1. That the present application is being filed seeking impleadment of the Applicant- Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (hereinafter referred as the “Applicant”) as a party respondent in the aforesaid WP(C) No. 43 of 2022.

 

2. That this Hon’ble Court in the present proceedings inter alia is considering the distribution of freebies by the political parties from public funds and its adverse impact on the fiscal health of country.

 

3. That the Applicant is a registered political party founded in 1949 by our leader CN Annadurai for propagating social justice, equality and upliftment of individuals belonging to oppressed backward classes through constitutional means. The Applicant has been elected under the State Legislature under being the five-time ruling party in the State of Tamil Nadu. The Applicant formed the current State Government on 7^th May 2021, by securing an absolute majority. Furthermore, the Applicant has held crucial ministries such as Ministry of Textiles, Chemicals and Fertilisers amongst others being a part of the Union Government formed by the United Progressive Alliance (UPA). The Applicant has introduced various welfare schemes for the people of Tamil Nadu such as rice at Re.1/kg, free distribution of colour television sets to poor households, free bus passes to women amongst others for uplifting the poor households.

 

4. That the issues raised in the present Writ Petition are of great public importance and has a pan India ramification on the issue of “freebies” as different schemes have been promulgated targeting different population demographic. Due to the diverse population, every region has different needs. Therefore, a single scheme cannot be applied in all the states.

 

5. It is respectfully submitted that there is no straight jacket formula which could be applied to decide what scheme could be considered as a freebie. Furthermore, under the Schedule VII to the Constitution, different subject matters have been distributed to the Central and State. The Constitution empowers the State Governments under the Concurrent and State Lists to promulgate welfare schemes. Therefore, the term “freebies” cannot be interpreted in such a way which interferes with the State’s competence under the Schedule

VII.  

 

6. It is submitted that such welfare schemes have been promulgated under Directive Principles of State Policy enshrined under the Articles 36-51 of the Constitution. The Article 37 explicitly states that it shall be the duty of the State to apply these principles in making such laws. It is pertinent to mention herein that all such schemes which are mentioned by the Petitioner in the present Writ Petition are within the four corners of these Articles. It is further pertinent to mention herein that these Articles are interlinked and have to be interpreted together.

 

7. It is humbly submitted that a welfare scheme providing a free service are introduced with an intent to secure a social order and economic justice under Article 38 to minimise the inequalities in income, status, facilities and opportunities. In no imaginable reality, it could be construed as a “freebie”. Such schemes have been introduced in order to provide basic necessities which the poor households cannot afford. They cannot be imputed to be luxuries. Schemes such as free electricity can have a multi-dimensional effect to a poor household. Electricity can provide lighting, heating and cooling resulting into a better standard of living. It can facilitate a child in his education and studies. A welfare scheme therefore, can have a wide reach and multiple intentions behind its introduction and the cascading effect arising from it cannot be defined in a restrictive meaning as a freebie.

 

8. That this Hon’ble Court has already considered in Subramaniam Balaji vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2013) 9 SCC 659 that the measures of distribution of colour TVs, laptops, mixer-grinders etc relate to implementation of the Directive Principles of State Policy. The principle of not to treat unequals as equals has no applicability unless the law or State action imposes some burden on the citizens either financial or otherwise. It is for the Government concerned to tale into account its financial resources and the need of the people. There cannot be a straitjacket formula.

 

9. It is humbly submitted that the scope of a “freebie” is very wide and there are a lot of aspects which are to be considered. Only a welfare scheme introduced by a State Government cannot be judged to be classified as a freebie. The ruling government at the Union giving tax holidays to foreign companies, waiver of bad loans of influential industrialists, granting crucial contracts to favoured conglomerates etc. also have to be considered and cannot be left untouched. This Hon’ble Court cannot have a restrictive approach for classifying any scheme or act by the Union/State Legislature to be a “freebie” without considering the magnitude of resultant consequences and social welfare at both micro and macro level.

 

10. It is humbly submitted that the welfare schemes promulgated are policy matters of the Government which are barred from Judicial Review. This Hon’ble Court in the case of Federation of Railway Officers Association and Ors. vs. Union of India (2003) 4 SCC 289, has held that on matters affecting policy and requiring technical expertise the Court would leave the matter for decision of those who are qualified to address the issues. Unless the policy or action is inconsistent with the Constitution and the laws or arbitrary or irrational or abuse of power, the court will not interfere in such matters.

 

11. It is respectfully submitted that the Petitioner has only made the Union of India and the Election Commission of India as party respondents. It is respectfully submitted that the Union of India is not the stakeholder in the present proceedings despite the fact that the Writ Petition blames those political parties which have been elected to power in the State Legislature. Therefore, it was imperative for the

Petitioner to implead such parties as Respondents. This Hon’ble Court has to consider the interests of all stakeholders representing diverse regions.  

 

 

12. That the issues raised in the present Writ Petition are of great public importance and has a pan India ramification on the issue of “freebies” as different schemes have been promulgated targeting different population demographic. Any order passed by this Hon’ble Court in the present proceeding can have a cascading effect and affect the governance at the grass root level. In the light of the above said facts and circumstances, it is imperative that the “DRAVIDA MUNNETRA KAZHAGAM” be impleaded in the instant Writ Petition, so that the necessary assistance may be given to this Hon’ble Court on the issue considering the distribution of freebies by the political parties from public funds.

 

13. The present application is made bona fide and in the interest of justice.

 

PRAYER

 

It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleaded to:

• Allow the Applicant- Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam to be impleaded as a Respondent in the present WP(c) No.

43/2022.

 

• Pass any such order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

 

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE APPLICANT AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY. 

FILED BY: 

 

 

NEW DELHI                                               (R.NEDUMARAN)

DATED: 16.08.2022            ADVOCATE FOR THE APPLICANT

 

 

 

 

MEMO OF APPEARANCE

To

The Registrar

Supreme Court of India

New Delhi

 

Sir,

Please enter my appearance for the abovenamed Petitioner(s)/ Appellant(s) in the above matter.

Yours faithfully,

 

 

(R. NEDUMARAN)

Advocate for the Petitioner/ Respondent Dated : 16.08.2022