The Election Commission of India (ECI), in a letter dated October 4, invited response from political parties on a proposal requiring them to provide authentic information to the voters on the "financial implications" of the poll promises they make ahead of elections. The Election Commission's intervention is a bit surprising as, in April this year, it had itself clearly told the Supreme Court that it was not within its powers to stop freebies. Further, in August, it retained its stance while backing the Supreme Court's decision to set up an expert committee to examine the regulatory measures for freebies. ECI's recent intervention doesn't put a tab on freebies in India but still verges on the edge of an interference whose constitutionality may be subject to scrutiny. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal termed the EC move as an "U-turn after filing affidavit in Supreme Court that it will stay out on freebie debate". ECI's objectives are clear. It acknowledges the right of political parties to design their manifesto but, at the same time, wishes to weed out the "undesirable impact" of certain promises on the conduct of free and fair elections. Through its intervention, it aims to spark a healthy debate on the financial implications of implementing the promises made by parties ahead of elections. The commission's intent is right but where it appears to fail is to clearly assess the impact that its proposal may have on welfare schemes — a trait that is so indispensable to the function of an inequality-stricken country like India. It also fails to take note of the political colour that the issue has acquired over the past few months. Back in July, Indian Prime Minister and BJP leader Narendra Modi, speaking at the event of Bundelkhand Expressway inauguration, stirred a debate on freebies, saying that the revdi (freebies) culture is very dangerous for the development of the country. He basically targeted his political opponents for "distributing free revdis" in exchange of votes. Political opponents were quick to grab the moment. AAP's national convener Arvind Kejriwal took the blame upon himself. He posed a pertinent question before the people, asking if the facilitation of "free and quality education to the children of poor and middle-class households in Delhi" is freebie? Later, in an indirect reference, Rajasthan CM also pointed out that it is the responsibility of a government to implement public welfare schemes. Notably, some of the BJP leaders had directly called out Kejriwal's name for propagating a "freebie model". This is viewed by many as a counter-narrative for Delhi's model of development. Through its Punjab win, the AAP has shown that the Delhi model finds resonance among people. Now that amid the shrinking opposition space, the AAP is headed against the BJP in Gujarat and Himachal Pradesh assembly elections, both the parties are hell bent on targeting the core narratives of each other. Aside from all these political debates, the freebie system remains an area of genuine concern. The degree of freebies doled out by certain political parties in some parts of India is shocking, and can't be left unchecked. It will be important to see what the Supreme Court decides on the matter. Back in August itself, CJI NV Ramana had highlighted the need to differentiate between a promise made by a politician as a 'freebie' and a 'welfare scheme.' This appears to be the core area of concern. One thing is obvious, freebie culture needs to be ended but, at the same time, any impediment to the implementation of welfare schemes must also be avoided. To achieve such a balance, a detailed plan needs to be chalked out b