Members of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme (MPLADS)

Syllabus: GS2/ Welfare Scheme

In Context

• A recent controversy erupted over alleged misuse of MPLADS funds and critics demanding the scheme should be discontinued.

Critical Arguments for Scrapping the Scheme

• Critics, including the 2nd Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC), have argued for its discontinuation based on:
  • Breach of Separation of Powers: The scheme allows legislators (MPs) to perform executive functions (deciding on specific local projects). This blurs the line between the legislature and the executive.
  • Federalism Concerns: The subjects covered under MPLADS (sanitation, local roads, etc.) fall under the State List and Local Bodies (73rd/74th Amendments). Critics argue the Union is “encroaching” on local government domains.
  • Inefficiency: CAG reports consistently highlight that funds are often diverted to “improve existing assets” rather than creating “durable community assets.”

About MPLADS

• Brief: The Members of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme (MPLADS) is a Central Sector Scheme launched in 1993, administered by the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation (MoSPI).
• Objective: To enable Members of Parliament (MPs) to recommend works for the creation of durable community assets based on locally felt needs such as drinking water, sanitation, roads, public health infrastructure. 
• Implementing Mechanism: MPs only recommend works and have no role in execution. Projects are implemented by government departments, trusts or cooperatives, selected by the Implementing District Authority (IDA), usually the District Collector, ensuring executive control.
• Funds alloted: Each MP is entitled to ₹5 crore per year under MPLADS. The funds are intended to supplement existing development schemes and address local gaps.
  • It requires MPs to recommend at least 15% of funds for SC-inhabited areas and 7.5% for ST-inhabited areas annually.
• Non Lapsable Fund: MPLADS funds are non-lapsable, meaning unutilised funds are carried forward to subsequent years, ensuring continuity of projects.
• Geographical coverage: Lok Sabha MPs can recommend works within their constituencies, Rajya Sabha MPs within their state of election, and nominated MPs anywhere in the country.
• Exceptions: MPs may recommend up to ₹25 lakh per year outside their constituency/state, and up to ₹1 crore for an affected district during natural calamities.

Judicial Stand

• Supreme Court (2010): In Bhim Singh v. Union of India, the SC upheld the constitutionality of MPLADS. It ruled that “separation of powers” is not rigid in India and that as long as the MP’s role is limited to “recommending” and the District Authority “executes,” the scheme is valid.
• Accountability Regime: The SC noted that mere misuse by some is not a ground to scrap the scheme, as checks like CAG audits and Parliamentary committees exist.

Way Ahead

• The monitoring mechanism of MPLADS should be strengthened through real-time digital dashboards, geo-tagging of assets and time-bound completion norms to reduce delays and improve outcomes.
• There is a need to enhance transparency by mandating public disclosure of recommended works, fund releases, utilisation certificates and completion status at the district level.
• Third-party audits and social audits should be institutionalised to curb misuse, diversion of funds and political favouritism, especially in high-value projects.
• MPLADS should be better integrated with district planning processes, ensuring convergence with Panchayati Raj Institutions and Urban Local Bodies, in line with the spirit of the 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments.

Source: TH