Member of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme (MPLADS) (GS Paper 2, Polity)
Context
- The Member of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme (MPLADS), introduced in 1993, remains a subject of debate in India.
- Advocates of the scheme argue that it empowers elected representatives to address local needs and drive development, while critics argue it undermines the constitutional principles of separation of powers and lacks proper accountability.
- Recent concerns about incomplete projects, underutilization of funds, and calls for increased funding have intensified the debate about the scheme’s effectiveness and governance.
- This article delves into the details of MPLADS, its strengths and weaknesses, and the arguments for and against it.
What is MPLADS?
MPLADS is a Central Sector Scheme that allows Members of Parliament (MPs) to recommend developmental works in their constituencies, with an emphasis on creating durable community assets based on local needs. The scheme aims to ensure that MPs can directly respond to the developmental challenges faced by their constituencies.
Key Features of MPLADS:
- Funding Allocation: Since 2011-12, each MP is allocated ₹5 crore annually for their constituency. These funds are disbursed in two installments of ₹2.5 crore by the Ministry of Statistics and Program Implementation (MoSPI).
- Non-Lapsable Funds: Unused funds can be carried forward to the following year, ensuring that any underutilization doesn’t result in a loss of resources.
- Special Provisions: MPs can allocate up to ₹25 lakh annually for projects outside their constituencies to promote national unity. For natural calamities, MPs can allocate up to ₹1 crore for relief efforts anywhere in India.
- Eligible Projects: MPLADS funds can be used for projects related to water facilities, education, health, infrastructure, sports (converging with the Khelo India initiative), and welfare for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs).
- Monitoring and Oversight: While the scheme is administrated by a state-level nodal department, district authorities are responsible for the actual sanctioning, fund allocation, and execution of projects.
Arguments For MPLADS
Supporters of MPLADS argue that the scheme offers several benefits:
- Empowering MPs for Local Development: MPs are the direct representatives of their constituencies and, therefore, are best positioned to understand and address the local needs of their communities. MPLADS allows MPs to focus on immediate, localized needs such as infrastructure, health, and education.
- Flexibility in Project Selection: The scheme allows MPs to recommend projects based on the specific needs of their constituency, which might not be addressed through larger, centralized government schemes. This flexibility ensures that MPs can quickly mobilize resources for urgent community development.
- Faster Implementation: Proponents argue that MPLADS enables more rapid execution of projects since MPs have the direct power to influence their implementation. This is particularly important in rural or underserved areas where bureaucratic delays might hinder development.
- National Unity and Welfare: The provisions that allow MPs to fund projects outside their constituencies for promoting national unity, or in response to natural disasters, reflect the spirit of national integration and collective welfare.
- Increased Demand for Funding: Some MPs argue that the ₹5 crore allocated to them is insufficient for large constituencies with high population density. An increase in funding could help MPs address local needs in a manner comparable to state legislators (MLAs), who often have larger allocations for smaller constituencies.
Criticisms of MPLADS
Despite its benefits, MPLADS has faced significant criticisms over the years, particularly concerning accountability and its alignment with constitutional principles.
- Violation of Separation of Powers: One of the primary criticisms of MPLADS is that it undermines the separation of powers. Critics argue that MPs, who are lawmakers, should not be involved in the executive function of project implementation. By recommending projects and allocating funds, MPs are seen as encroaching on the duties of the executive branch, violating the principle that legislative, executive, and judicial powers should remain distinct.
- Lack of Accountability and Transparency: A major concern with MPLADS is the lack of effective monitoring. The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India has flagged numerous issues related to underutilization of funds, mismanagement, and substandard work. Projects are sometimes implemented using inferior materials, delayed, or poorly documented. Moreover, third-party evaluations have revealed irregularities such as encroachment of assets, non-existence of projects, and diversion of funds.
- Political Misuse: There have been instances where MPLADS funds were allegedly misused for political gains. The distribution of funds is often perceived as patronage, benefiting MPs' supporters, contractors, or even family members. During election periods, these funds are sometimes used for electoral purposes, raising concerns about political misuse.
- Overlapping with Other Schemes: Critics argue that the funds allocated under MPLADS could be better utilized if directly allocated to local governments, such as Panchayats or Municipalities, which are better equipped to address local needs. Many existing central and state government schemes already focus on local development, and MPLADS could be seen as duplicating efforts.
- Insufficient Monitoring: Despite the scheme being subject to third-party evaluations, the lack of timely and effective monitoring often leaves issues unaddressed. Evaluations are often delayed, limiting the opportunity for corrective action during project execution. There is also limited access to fund utilization data, reducing public scrutiny and transparency.
Supreme Court’s Stance on MPLADS
- In 2010, the Supreme Court of India upheld the constitutionality of MPLADS, clarifying that MPs have the right to recommend projects but not to directly execute them.
- The Court recognized the scheme’s positive contribution to local development, particularly in areas like water supply, healthcare, and education.
- The Court’s decision was based on the fact that the Union government can allocate funds for public welfare under Article 282 of the Indian Constitution, which allows expenditure for public purposes.
- The Supreme Court further emphasized that the scheme was aligned with the Directive Principles of State Policy (Article 38), promoting the welfare of the people.
Reforms or Abolition?
Given the concerns surrounding MPLADS, there have been calls for both reforms and abolition:
- Reforms: Advocates for reform suggest providing statutory backing to MPLADS and establishing an independent monitoring body to ensure accountability and transparency. Opening the contractor selection process to open tendering and involving the CAG in the oversight process could help mitigate the risk of misuse. Additionally, integrating MPLADS with national welfare schemes like MGNREGS could maximize its impact.
- Abolition: Those calling for the abolition of MPLADS argue that the scheme leads to duplication of efforts and political misuse. They propose redirecting these funds directly to local governments like Panchayats or Municipalities, which are better equipped to plan and implement projects based on the actual needs of their communities.
Conclusion
- The MPLADS continues to be a complex issue within India’s democratic governance.
- While it has provided essential development in many constituencies, it also raises significant concerns regarding accountability, political misuse, and the separation of powers.
- Whether the scheme can be reformed to ensure greater transparency, or whether it should be abolished in favor of more direct local governance, remains a key question for policymakers.
- As India seeks to balance decentralized development with robust oversight, the future of MPLADS will depend on addressing these concerns while safeguarding its role in local community development.
