Election seasons often bring a rain of promises – free power, loan waivers, cash transfers, gadgets, travel, and more. These “freebies” raise a serious constitutional and economic question: can the State keep spending like this without limit, and does it distort free and fair elections?

From a legal standpoint, there is tension between welfare obligations and financial responsibility. Constitutions usually expect the State to work towards social justice and reducing inequality. At the same time, there are provisions about fiscal discipline, proper use of public funds, and duties of those in power not to bankrupt the system for short-term gain.

Courts have been cautious. They rarely say that a particular welfare promise is outright unconstitutional just because it’s generous. But they do push for:

• Transparent budgeting and realistic financial planning,
  
• Expert bodies or finance commissions to evaluate long-term impact,
  
• Clear distinction between essential welfare (health, education, food security) and pure vote-catching gimmicks.
  

The deeper issue is political culture. If voters keep rewarding unsustainable promises, parties will keep offering them. Constitutional checks can nudge the system, but ultimately financial realism and informed public debate are what keep the ship steady.