By Venkatachari Jagannathan Chennai 21 Aug : At the time that the political institutions in the country are discussing gratuities, it was city-based advocate S.Subramaiam Balaji who had fought against it.
Balaji stood up against the freebies for the populists first announced by the DMK party, followed by the rival AIADMK in Tamil Nadu and later by other parties in the country.
He began his quest to petition 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 long battle that he was defeated in every way, however Balaji was not frightened because he was of the opinion that private assets could not be made out of public funds.
He has said that the announcement of freebies is a shady practice in Section of 123 of the Representation of People’s Act.
The Apex Court in 2013 even though it did not prohibit freebie schemes, it had ordered the Election Commission to frame guidelines for political parties to mention freebies in their manifestos for elections.
Balaji felt strongly that the chance was missed to control in opposition parties forming private assets made of public funds to stay in control.
The Supreme Court had ruled that the promise of gratuitous prizes in the manifesto for elections does not constitute a corrupt practice in the context of Section 123 of the Representation of Peoples Act, while directing the Election Commission to frame guidelines for political parties.
The court ruled following Balaji filed a lawsuit in opposition to the giving of free television sets with colour from the DMK to the public in fulfillment of its election pledge in the year 2006.
In an attempt to beat the DMK In an attempt to beat the DMK, the AIADMK then under the late J.Jayalalithaa promised mixers grinders, fans, laptops among other freebies at the time of the 2011 assembly polls.
Cheap rice and free TV, no electricity, a stove that is free and cash dole pledges made by political parties is nothing more than “bribery”, Balaji had claimed.
The government can’t enrich private citizens through the use of the consolidated funds.
Offering free land, free TVs or cash doles per month are precisely what Balaji has said.
In response to one of his complaints, the panel ruled that an announcement of the public interest or an undertaking of actions by the public – such as giving free colour televisions was a violation of Section 171-B of the IPC.
Food is just one of the three essentials needed for an individual to live.It is a matter of the policy of the government.
However, a color TV is not a necessary item, he had said.
The challenge of the high and powerful was not new to Balaji.
His public interest petition in the Madras High Court that brought in the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate the involvement of several top-ranking Tamil Nadu police officials in the Telgi fake stamp paper fraud.
Coming from a lineage of lawyers Balaji’s father N.Sivasankaran is a High Court lawyer, and his older sister Mahalakshmi Ramaswamy is also a lawyer.
Balaji had varied academic interests.
Prior to his law school degree, he had done M.Phil in Defence Studies.
Although Balaji died in the year 2017 at an extremely young age, just a couple of months after he was involved with a car accident and suffering head injuries the problem he had raised and fought against will be a constant issue in the nation.
The decision in the case, filed by him is a landmark decision.
It is being cited or quoted on this topic for a long time.The young zealot had left his mark in the legal books , something few advocates are fortunate enough to have the opportunity to do.
(Venkatachari Jagannathan can be reached at [email protected])
vj/bg
