The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed that the petition seeking to outlaw “freebies” announced for voters by political parties should be listed before a three-judge bench, PTI reported.

Bharatiya Janata Party leader Ashwini Upadhyay has filed a public interest litigation seeking directions to the Election Commission to not allow political parties to promise certain social welfare benefits which he describes as freebies.

On August 26, a bench headed by former Chief Justice of India NV Ramana had transferred the case to a three-judge bench.

On Tuesday, Upadhyay claimed that only his prayer to overrule a Supreme Court judgement from 2013 needed to be heard by a three-judge bench, Live Law reported. He was referring to the judgement in the S Subramaniam Balaji vs Tamil Nadu case, in which the top court had held that promises made by a political party would not constitute a corrupt practice.

The BJP leader told the court that his petition also seeks the formation of an expert panel to control “irrational freebies” in the larger public interest. He argued that this prayer need not be heard by a three-judge bench.

However, the court did not accept Upadhyay’s contention. “Once there is a reference order, let it be decided by three judges,” Chief Justice UU Lalit said. “Let the instant matter be listed before a three judge bench of this court.”

At a hearing of the plea on August 3, the Supreme Court had suggested that an expert body comprising various stakeholders such as the government, the NITI Aayog, the Finance Commission, the Law Commission, the Election Commission, the Reserve Bank of India, and members of the Opposition should be formed to give their suggestions on the matter.

At the time, the Centre had told the court that political parties offering freebies to voters would have an adverse impact on the economy.

A number of political parties have filed intervention applications in the case seeking that the court should hear their stand on the matter. They have argued that social welfare schemes could not be described as freebies.

The Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam had cited an example of the benefits of offering schemes like free electricity to citizens. “In no imaginable reality, it could be construed as a freebie,” a petition by the party had stated. “Such schemes have been introduced in order to provide basic necessities which the poor households cannot afford. They cannot be imputed to be luxuries.”

The Aam Aadmi Party, in its intervention application before the court, alleged that the petitioner wanted to oppose a particular “socialist and welfarist agenda” adopted by it that helps the poor.