07-November-2024-Special-Article

MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT LOCAL AREA DEVELOPMENT SCHEME (MPLADS)

The Member of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme (MPLADS) is a contentious program in India. Advocates argue that it helps MPs address local development needs, while critics contend it undermines key constitutional principles like the separation of powers.

Ongoing reports about incomplete projects and appeals for higher funding further highlight the need for greater oversight and accountability in MPLADS.

What is MPLADS?

About MPLADS

• Launch: MPLADS is a Central Sector Scheme, introduced in 1993.
• Objective: It allows Members of Parliament (MPs) to propose development projects within their constituencies.
• Focus: The scheme prioritizes the creation of long-lasting assets based on community needs.

Implementation

• Oversight: A state-level nodal department manages the scheme.
• Execution: District authorities approve projects, disburse funds, and ensure implementation.

Funding and Allocation

• Annual Allocation: Each MP receives an annual allocation of Rs 5 crore (since 2011-12).
• Disbursement: The Ministry of Statistics and Program Implementation (MoSPI) releases funds in two installments of Rs 2.5 crore each.
• Non-lapsable Funds: Unused funds carry forward to the next year.
• Social Allocation: MPs must allocate at least 15% of funds for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and 7.5% for Scheduled Tribes (STs).

Special Provisions

• National Unity: MPs can spend up to Rs 25 lakh annually on projects outside their constituencies or states to promote national unity.
• Calamity Relief: In case of severe natural disasters, MPs can allocate up to Rs 1 crore for relief projects anywhere in India.

Eligible Projects

• Collaboration with MGNREGS: MPLADS funds can be combined with the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS) to create sustainable assets.
• Khelo India Program: Funds may support sports infrastructure under this program.
• Infrastructure Support: Permissible for land owned by registered societies or trusts focused on social welfare for at least three years, barring those with MP family members in management roles.

Arguments For and Against MPLADS

Criticisms

Constitutional Issues:

• MPLADS blurs the line between legislative and executive roles, as MPs recommend projects typically handled by the executive branch.
• District authorities often comply with MP recommendations, raising questions about accountability and the constitutional separation of powers.
• The 2nd Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) in 2005 advised abolishing the scheme, noting that it encroaches on executive and local government roles.

Accountability Concerns:

• Weak monitoring systems raise the risk of fund misuse.
• Reports suggest that MPs might use funds for political gain, benefiting influential community members, contractors, or family members.
• Lack of statutory backing makes enforcing guidelines challenging.

Political Influence:

• Audits reveal potential political motivations behind fund usage, especially around elections.

Issues in Execution

CAG Report: The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) has found multiple issues:

• Underutilization of funds, with usage rates from 49% to 90%.
• Excessive spending on upgrading existing assets instead of creating new ones.
• Issues like excessive payments, substandard materials, and delays in work orders.
• Poor record-keeping, creating transparency and accountability concerns.

Supportive Arguments

• Local Development Tool: Many MPs view MPLADS as a way to address local needs directly, catering to specific community issues.
• Flexible Project Selection: Proponents argue MPLADS allows for faster project execution aligned with local needs.
• Funding Demand: MPs advocate for increased MPLADS funding, as the per capita allocation is lower than what state legislators receive, even with larger constituency populations.

Supreme Court’s View on MPLADS

• In 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that MPLADS is constitutionally valid.
• The Court clarified that MPs only recommend projects, which district officials execute.
• It acknowledged that MPLADS contributes positively to local development, funding essential projects like water facilities, education, healthcare, and infrastructure.
• The SC referenced Article 282 (public welfare funding through Appropriation Bill) and Article 38 (Directive Principles of State Policy), affirming the scheme’s legal standing for public welfare.

Monitoring and Accountability

Third-Party Evaluations

• Evaluations by organizations like NABCONS and AFC Limited note some positive impacts, such as quality asset creation and decentralized development.
• However, evaluations reveal issues such as ineligible projects, encroachment on assets, missing assets, delays, and award of works to ineligible entities.

Challenges in Monitoring

• Delays in evaluation limit corrective action during project execution.
• Insufficient follow-up on irregularities allows misuse of funds.
• Limited public access to fund utilization data restricts transparency.

Should MPLADS be Reformed or Abolished?

Arguments for Reform

Enhanced Accountability:

• Granting statutory status and establishing an independent monitoring body could strengthen governance, transparency, and oversight.
• Open tendering and oversight by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) could prevent mismanagement.

Better Integration with National Programs:

• Integrating MPLADS with programs like MGNREGS and PM-JANMAN Scheme could maximize benefits and ensure funds are used effectively.
• Reform could also focus on marginalized communities for targeted development.

Arguments for Abolition

Empowering Local Governments:

• Redirecting funds to local bodies (Panchayats, Municipalities) could allow more localized solutions, aligning with specific community needs.
• With various government schemes addressing local development, MPLADS may duplicate efforts, leading to inefficient resource use.

Reducing Corruption and Misuse:

• Inadequate regulations make MPLADS susceptible to misuse, resulting in uneven fund allocation and potential corruption.

Conclusion

Balancing the development potential of MPLADS with strong accountability mechanisms is essential for its future. While reforms could enhance transparency and effectiveness, the question of whether MPLADS requires structural change or abolition remains a significant topic in India’s governance debate.

Mains Question:

1. “Critically analyze the effectiveness of the MPLADS scheme in promoting local development while upholding constitutional principles like the separation of powers.” (150 WORDS)