A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court today unanimously upheld the MP Local Area Development (MPLAD) scheme, stating that Parliament had the power to disburse funds under it.
Under the scheme, each member of Parliament is provided Rs 2 crore annually for development of his constituency. This was challenged in several public interest petitions.
The Bench presided over by Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan stated that there was no violation of the principle of separation of powers, though some improvements could be made in the scheme.
The court also rejected the contention of the petitioners that the scheme gave arbitrary powers to the MP to disburse the amount without any accountability regarding the money spent.
The bench said mere allegations that the funds could be misused cannot be a ground for cancelling the scheme. Both the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha have standing committees to monitor the scheme.
The judgment stated that the scheme had contributed to the development of local areas as the funds had been used for providing water, electricity, infrastructure, library and sports facilities.
The court rejected the argument of the petitioners that sitting parliamentarians got an unfair advantage over their political rivals. It pointed out that the district authorities could monitor the implementation of the scheme.
Though the scheme was criticised on several counts, it came into prominence after a sting operation in 2005 in which some MPs were seen demanding money from contractors to sanction projects. The expose had led to the expulsion of some members from both Houses of Parliament.
The Union government defended the scheme, saying it had the authority under Article 282 of the Constitution to release money under it.
The government submitted that it was also a welfare measure implemented with the assistance of the local authorities and other schemes including Jawahar Rozgar Yojna, Indira Gandhi Old Age Pension Scheme and Integrated Child Development Scheme.
The funds under MPLADS were directly released by the Centre to the district authorities and they did not go directly in the hands of the MP.
