Economic justice

Social protection programs ensure economic justice, cannot be interpreted as gifts

NEW DELHI: The Tamil Nadu DMK ruling has asked the Supreme Court to seek to be named as a defendant in an ongoing ‘gifts’ case, saying the scope of gifts is very wide and only a scheme of social protection introduced by the government of a state cannot be judged. be classified as a gift.

The DMK, in its implementation of the request, said: “It is humbly argued that the scope of a ‘giveaway’ is very broad and there are many aspects to consider. Only a scheme protection introduced by a state government cannot be deemed to be classified as a gift.”

He further added: “The ruling government within the Union granting tax exemptions to foreign companies, waiving bad debts of influential industrialists, awarding crucial contracts to favored conglomerates, etc., must also be taken into account and cannot be left untouched.”

He argued that the trial court cannot take a restrictive approach to classify any scheme or act of the Union/State Legislature as a “gratuitous” without regard to the magnitude of the consequences which result and social well-being at the micro and macro levels.

The plea alleged that a social welfare scheme providing a free service is introduced for the purpose of ensuring social order and economic justice under section 38 to minimize inequalities in income, status, amenities and opportunities and in no imaginable reality could it be construed as a “gift”.

“Such programs were introduced in order to provide basic necessities that poor households cannot afford. They cannot be considered luxuries. Programs such as free electricity can have a multi-dimensional effect on a poor household. Electricity can provide lighting, heating and cooling resulting in a better standard of living. This can facilitate a child’s upbringing and education,” the app said.

He further added that a social protection scheme can therefore have a wide scope and multiple intentions behind its introduction and that the resulting cascading effect cannot be defined in a restrictive sense as free. “The Constitution empowers state governments under the Concurrent Lists and State Lists to enact welfare plans. Accordingly, the term ‘gratuitousnesses’ may not be construed in a manner that interferes with the jurisdiction of the State ‘Status under Schedule VII,’ the app said.

The Aam Aadmi party also filed a petition with the Supreme Court, with similar arguments.