During the recent hearing of a public interest litigation concerning urban homelessness, Justice BR Gavai made a striking yet unsubstantiated remark, questioning whether welfare measures for the most marginalized were fostering a “class of parasites” “rather than integrating them into mainstream society”. This sweeping statement, devoid of evidentiary backing, was made in a case concerning those who lack even the most basic human necessity i.e. shelter. The judicial rhetoric of equating welfare schemes with “freebies” or revdis, unlike indulgence in decadence, a politically charged word towards maintaining limited government intervention even for those trapped in destitution. The remark signals a troubling shift in India’s discourse as a socialist welfare state, where the Preamble ingrains socialism as a core principle, and the Supreme Court has, over time, refined an indigenous socialist model. The Nehru-Indira era upheld a mixed economy, but the steady march of neoliberalism has systematically eroded its edifice. 

The assertion that “freebies” make people not willing to work is particularly unsettling in the era of economic disparity as the top 1 per cent holds 50 per cent of the country’s wealth and the bottom 50 per cent holds just 3 per cent; the fault lines are evident. The unemployment rate stood at around 7.8 per cent as of September 2024 according to the Periodic Labour Force Survey Report. Despite the rapidly expanding workforce, job creation remains almost stagnant leaving millions awaiting to be absorbed in the workforce. Against all the backdrop, dismissing welfare schemes as ‘freebies’ as a sort of opioid that saps the masses rather than recognizing its necessity ostensibly lays bare a troubling judicial apathy towards the very individuals these institutions are sworn to protect.

This is far from the first time the judiciary has chastised the welfare schemes or, more disturbingly, branded a section as a “parasite” in the realm of public interest litigation. The late 70’s witnessed the emergence of public interest litigations (PILs) to raise various issues like prisoner’s rights, bonded labour, etc. Prof. Upendra Baxi interpreted this as the transformation of the highest court of the land from the “Supreme Court of India” to the “Supreme Court of Indians”, as PILs had opened the judicial process for all. Over time, it has also been witnessed that PIL jurisprudence has on occasion drifted from its intended purpose; Prof. Anuj Bhuwania in ‘Courting the People: Public Interest Litigation in Post-Emergency India’ an ethnographic research, point to several maladies. A few of them being ‘Omnibus PIL’ where a PIL filed to address a specific localized issue is often transformed into broad, generalized litigation often substituting the petitioner with amicus curiae, undermining the agency of the petitioner and judiciary assuming a disproportionate role in steering the case to its priorities rather than the issues raised in the petition. Here too Justice BR Gavai while dealing with the issue of shelter homes and homeless people, instead of holding responsible the state machinery and the requirement of state intervention steered the matter into a debate of freebies which was definitely the issue before the Court.

There have been previous such instances where the Courts have done such. For instance, in the early 2000s, in Almitra H Patel vs Union of India, the petitioner sought the formulation of Solid Waste Management (Management and Handling) Rules. The then Supreme Court judge, Justice BN Kripal steered the petition away from this subject, to the altogether different issue of proliferation of slums in Delhi. In an interview, the petitioner lamented that the court had derailed the case for ‘over two years’. Similarly, in Sudhir Madan vs MCD, during arguments for ascertaining the hawker’s rights, Justice BP Singh made dismissive remarks suggesting if broad rights were granted to the hawkers, Delhi would be renamed as ‘Hawkers Nagar’ and soon the “hawkers would be selling food in the Supreme Court building”. More recently, a division bench of Madras High Court comprising Justice N. Kirubakaran and Justice B. Pugalenthi expressed strong disapproval of welfare schemes providing necessities such as laptops, household utilities, and job guarantees. The judges lamented that such measures were making people lazy and discouraging hard work, even arguing that the culture of “freebies” had led to increased reliance on migrant labour from northern and northeastern states.

Dismissal of welfare schemes though rampant, is not the position in law as laid down by the Supreme Court. In the case of S. Subramaniam Balaji vs The Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors, where it was contended that the gift, offers or promise by the candidate or agent (political) amounts to ‘bribery’ or ‘inducement’ under Section 123 of the Representation of Peoples Act, the Apex Court had held that promises made in manifestos and delivering upon the promises by the future government are not in the court’s domain. Further, the court observed:

The concept of State largesse is essentially linked to Directive Principles of State Policy. Whether the State should frame a scheme, which directly gives benefits to improve the living standards or indirectly by increasing the means of livelihood, is for the state to decide and the role of the court is limited in this regards.

The Apex Court concurred with the State government’s stance to promote the welfare of the people by securing and protecting, with the objective of achieving social and economic justice. The Apex Court added that livelihood and standard of living are bound to change in their content from time to time, and what may have been considered a luxury has now become a necessity and the concept of livelihood can no longer be confined to bare physical survival. This judgment, in that sense, follows the doctrine of separation of powers, that is policy is the domain of the executive and the judiciary does not have to jurisdiction or expertise in that regard.

The Mandela effect of welfare schemes permeating lethargy and other vices is unfounded. Nobel laureate Abhijit Banerjee while addressing the 20th foundation day of Bandhan Bank suggested that there is no empirical evidence to suggest that such government intervention towards uplifting the poor makes them lazy. On the contrary, welfare schemes have proved themselves to have positive ripple effects. Governmental affirmative action helped in the upliftment of the poor and made them more productive and creative based on his decade of research in diverse economies from different continents.

As far as political parasitism is concerned, the true parasites are those who exploit their host while remaining invisible, escaping recognition and accountability. Consider the two parallel systems at work: on one hand, corporations benefit from generous incentives like tax deductions and waivers, amassing wealth generated by the labour of billions in India who toil in drudgery; on the other, the surplus produced by this labour is disproportionately enjoyed by those at the echelons. Yet, the idea of parasitism doesn’t hold in the public imagination in a real sense. As has been aptly put by Marxist Scholar Prof. Jason Read the moment something is identified as a parasite, it risks eradication. The most successful parasites are never labelled as such, they seamlessly integrate into the system they exploit. If at all the parasites have to be called out, they are those who have mastered the art of invisibility, ensured survival and flourished while the rest bear the burden.