MPLADS, launched in 1993, allows Members of Parliament (MPs) to recommend developmental projects in their constituencies, addressing locally felt needs. While hailed as a tool for localized development, it faces criticism for undermining constitutional principles, lack of accountability, and potential misuse of funds.
Key Features of MPLADS
- Purpose: Create durable community assets in constituencies based on local needs.
- Funding: Rs. 5 crore annually per MP; 15% and 7.5% earmarked for SCs and Sts respectively.
- Funds are disbursed by the Ministry of Statistics and Program Implementation (MoSPI) to district authorities in two instalments of Rs 2.5 crore each.
- Implementation: State nodal departments oversee the scheme; district authorities sanction and implement projects.
- Special Provisions: Funds can be allocated outside constituencies for national unity projects or disaster relief.
- For projects promoting national unity, MPs can allocate up to Rs 25 lakh annually outside their constituencies or states.
- For severe natural calamities, MPs can allocate up to Rs 1 crore for projects anywhere in India.
- Convergence: Can integrate with schemes like the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS) for durable asset creation and Khelo India for sports infrastructure.
Criticisms of MPLADS
- Constitutional Violations:
- Breaches separation of powers by involving legislators in executive functions.
- The 2nd ARC (2005) recommended its abolition, citing conflicts with local governance rights.
- Lack of Accountability:
- No statutory backing; challenges in enforcing rules.
- Reports of misuse for personal or political gains.
- Execution Issues:
- CAG reports highlight underutilization (49%-90%), delays, and substandard works.
- Political Misuse:
- Allegations of fund utilization investigations being politically motivated during elections.
Arguments Supporting MPLADS
- Localized Development: Enables MPs to address constituency-specific issues promptly.
- Flexibility: Allows MPs to prioritize projects reflecting local demands.
- Increased Demand: MPs argue for higher allocations to match resources given to state legislators (MLAs).
Reform vs. Abolition Debate
- Reforms:
- Provide statutory backing and establish independent monitoring.
- Introduce open tendering and integration with schemes like MGNREGS.
- Focus on marginalized communities for equitable development.
- Abolition:
- Redirect funds to local governments for more efficient and need-based utilization.
- Avoid duplication of efforts with existing government schemes.
The future of MPLADS hinges on striking a balance between fostering local development and ensuring accountability. While reforms could address current shortcomings, abolition might streamline governance and enhance resource utilization for broader developmental goals. The debate continues to be a test of India’s democratic and developmental priorities.
