Above: A West Bengal school that got aid from Sachin Tendulkar under MPLADS

More than two decades after its inception in 1993, this laudable scheme is being criticised for lack of transparency and accountability in how the funds are utilised

By Vrinda Agarwal

“It is sad that lawmakers of the nation did not make law for their own MPLADS”—Central Information Commissioner M Sridhar Acharyalu

In December 23, 1993, then Prime Minister PV Narasimha Rao launched the Member of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme (MPLADS) with the stated objective of enabling MPs to identify small works of capital nature based on locally perceived needs in their constituencies. Over two decades later, MPLADS continues to attract criticism for lack of transparency and accountability in how funds sanctioned under the scheme are utilised. Some have even demanded that the scheme be scrapped.

MPLADS is a centrally sponsored scheme fully funded by the government through the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation (MoSPI). Under MPLADS, every MP is provided an annual corpus of Rs 5 crore for spending on development works for identified sectors such as drinking water, sanitation, electricity, roads, schools, orphanages and community shelters in their respective constituencies. Similar to MPLADS, several states have enacted schemes (MLALADS) where funds are given to MLAs.

The latest salvo against MPLADS has come from the Central Information Commission (CIC), which in a recent order has asked the Lok Sabha Speaker and Rajya Sabha Chairman to put in place a legal framework for the implementation of MPLADS. The order was issued by the CIC while hearing a petition filed by Ram Gopal Dixit, who in September 2016 had sought information from the MoSPI and Ministry of Railways on works recommended by BJP MP Rajesh Kumar Diwakar in Hathras Lok Sabha constituency.

While indicting MoSPI for failing to furnish the information, the CIC examined the existing MPLADS guidelines and identified several lacunae in implementation. These guidelines, inter alia, provide that: (i) each MP will recommend works to the concerned district authorities; (ii) the district authority will identify the agency to execute it; (iii) if the recommended work cannot be executed, the district authority must inform the MP within 45 days of receipt of the proposal; (iv) unutilised funds can be carried forward to the subsequent year; (v) the district authority shall maintain accounts of MPLADS for each MP and provide utilisation certificates to the state government and MoSPI every year; and (vi) works must be completed within 18 months from the dissolution of the Lok Sabha or the date of demitting office (for Rajya Sabha MPs) and subsequently accounts must be closed.

As per the CIC order, the proposed legal framework should, inter alia, set out specific duties and compulsory obligations for MPs, prescribe rules and regulations, identify what acts/omissions by MPs would constitute breach of duty and “impose liabilities for dereliction of those duties and breach of rules and regulations which may include prohibition of certain acts”. The order also states that the legal framework should prohibit MPs from certain acts, such as claiming that assets created under MPLADS were “not traceable”, spending MPLADS funds for private works, recommending funds to ineligible agencies, diverting funds to private trusts, recommending works to benefit the MP or his or her relatives and breaching any norms laid down for recommending works.

The order further sets out an illustrative list of the obligations which may be imposed on MPs, such as: (i) duty to inform every year, number of applications received, works recommended, works rejected with reasons, progress of works, details of beneficiaries, and to submit upon completion of their term, a comprehensive report on MPLADS works to the Lok Sabha Speaker or Rajya Sabha Chairman and to the office of Parliament; (ii) duty to provide such information to voters seeking it under the Right to Information Act, 2005; and (iii) duty of parliamentary parties to post such details on their official websites and on web pages of their MPs on india.gov.in.

Observing that the MoSPI does not maintain information on creation of assets and depends on district authorities to provide utilisation certificates to release more funds, the CIC expressed concern. It said that it is difficult to prevent corruption in such a non-transparent massive funding scheme, totally dependent on individual discretion with unquestionable privileges coupled with immunity of MPs.

To bring in transparency, the CIC has directed the MoSPI to publish MP-wise, constituency-wise and work-wise details, along with the names of beneficiaries and reasons for delay in completion of projects and works being implemented under the scheme. According to Central Infor­mation Commissioner M Sridhar Acharyalu, the absence of such data makes it hard to understand what works were taken up and what assets were created, and “such a deliberate ambiguity is a kind of malicious denial of information”.

Acharyalu also took cognisance of a report issued by MoSPI in August 2018, which revealed that Rs 12,000 crore of MPLADS funds were lying unspent. In an order issued in 2017, the CIC had strongly recommended parliamentary parties ensure “100 percent proper utilisation” of these funds by each of their MPs and voluntarily appoint officials to answer RTI queries on the issue.

This is not the first instance of MPLADS coming under scrutiny. In two audit reports submitted in 1998 and 2001, the Comptroller and Auditor General of India pointed out that MPLADS is riddled with “poor utilisation of funds, poor monitoring by the MoSPI, poor quality and at times inadmissible work, and suspected fraud and corruption”. In 2002, the National Commission to Re­view the Working of the Consti­tu­tion proposed discontinuance of the scheme on the ground that it creates disparity of power distribution between the centre and the states. The discontinuance proposal was reiterated in 2007 by the Second Administrative Reforms Commission.

Professor Jagdeep Chhokar, founder and trustee of the Association for Democratic Reforms, told India Legal that the CIC order is applause-worthy but putting in a legal framework for a scheme which is inherently faulty is like “throwing good money after bad money”. He said that MPLADS ought to be scrap­ped as it gives “unbridled power and fin­ancial muscle to MPs to dole out favours and infringes the principle of separation of powers by enabling legislators to perform executive functions. While one may theoretically argue that MPs only recommend works and district authorities have the ultimate power to decide which works are funded under the scheme, in reality, an MP’s discretion always prevails over that of the district authority”.

However, PDT Achary, former Secretary General of the Lok Sabha, said MPLADS had contributed to significant development work and should not be scrapped. He told India Legal: “In the initial years, the scheme was marred by complaints of a nexus between parliamentarians and contractors which led the government to issue guidelines for its implementation. Subsequently, several parts of the country have benefited from development projects carried out under the scheme. The CIC order is correct insofar as it suggests plugging the loopholes in the scheme and introducing further transparency.”

It remains to be seen if the government will implement the CIC’s order in letter and spirit.