Font size:
Print
MPLADS
Context:
The Delhi High Court observed that the Central Information Commission (CIC) has no jurisdiction to comment on the utilisation of funds by the members of Parliament under the Members of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme.
More on News:
- The high court said that as per section 18 of the RTI Act, the CIC can “only deal with issues relating to the information sought for under the RTI Act or any other issue which leads to dissipation of information as sought for by the applicant”.
- The court said the CIC has “no jurisdiction to comment adversely” on the “functioning” of any public authority.
Background:
- The Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation filed the plea challenging an order of the CIC passed to an RTI application.
- CIC passed the order that “Some MPs hoard MPLADS funds in earlier years, then spend them before elections to gain an unfair advantage.
- The Commission urges the Ministry of Statistics and Program Implementation to prevent MPLADS fund abuse by distributing funds evenly each year”
About Members of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme (MPLADS):
- Launched in 1993 as a Central sector scheme.
- Ministry: Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation (MoSPI).
- Objective: It enables the members of parliaments (MP) to recommend developmental work in their constituencies with an emphasis on creating durable community assets based on locally felt needs.
- Working of the scheme:
- The amount is currently fixed at Rs. 5 (five) crore per annum.
- MPs do not receive any money under these schemes and can only recommend works in their constituencies based on a set of guidelines.
- The government transfers it directly to the respective local authorities.
- For the MPLAD Scheme, the guidelines focus on the creation of durable community assets like roads, school buildings etc.
- An elected Member of Parliament can also recommend works anywhere in the country outside the usual region in which he/ she can recommend work subject to the following conditions:
- There shall be a ceiling of Rs. 25 lakhs in a financial year per Member of Parliament for all such recommendations, except in case of calamity.
- In case of Calamity, Any Member of Parliament from anywhere in the country can consent their MPLADS funds up to Rs—one Crore per annum.
-
- For rehabilitation and reconstruction works in areas affected by natural “calamity of severe nature” declared by the Government of India in any part of the country, subject to other provisions of these Guidelines.
-
- Funds Can be used for:
- Public and community buildings
- Public conveniences, safety and security
- Education
- Public health
- Drinking water and sanitation
- Irrigation, drainage and flood control systems
Criticism of MPLADS:
- Violates Separation of Power: The scheme gives an executive function to legislators.
- MPs only recommend projects, but the final choice and implementation rests with the district authorities is strange.
- Hardly any authority in the district defies the wishes of an MP.
- Allegations of corruption: As per the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India report, Expenditure incurred by the executing agencies was less than the amount booked.
- The utilisation of funds is between 49 to 90% of the booked amount.
- No accountability for the expenditure in terms of the quality and quantities executed against specifications.
- Gaps in Utilisation: In the year 2015, 298 of 542 members have not spent a rupee from the ₹5 crores that is set aside annually for them to develop their constituencies.
- Though ₹1,757 crore had been released for MPLADs, only ₹281 crore had been utilised by all the 543 MPs from May 2014-15.
- Favouritism: Money under MPLADS being used to appease or oblige opinion-makers or opinion-influencers, and favourite contractors.
- Sometimes the contractor is a relative, close friend, or confidant of the MP, and the contractor and the MP are financially linked with each other.
- Discontinuation of Scheme: The National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (2000) and the Second Administrative Reforms Commission, headed by Veerappa Moily (2007), recommended discontinuation of the scheme.