Since its launch in 1993, the MPLADS — a scheme that provides a Rs 2-crore fund to every MP to invest in development works in his constituency (or states for Rajya Sabha MPs) — has been dogged by controversy. Audit reports exposing corruption and inadequate utilisation make

regular newspaper headlines. Moreover, many have criticised the scheme on the grounds that it is simply unconstitutional. Despite this, the scheme has become so institutionalised that it is often viewed as a key indicator of an MP’s performance. In the run up to the recent Lok Sabha polls, many NGOs and media outlets prepared report cards on MP performance using MPLADS expenditures as a key criterion. Now, the government of India is considering nearly tripling the allocation under the scheme, from Rs 2 crore to Rs 5 crore each. As this proposal begins its rounds of South Block, it is worth revisiting some of the reasons for the controversial nature of the scheme and examining why the fund may not be such a good idea in the first place.

The official justification for the MPLADS is that legislators need discretionary funds to respond swiftly to their constituents’ demands. The first report of the parliamentary committee on MPLADS stated that, prior to the scheme, MPs were “silent spectators” who merely recommended works to

local bodies, municipalities or state governments. Drawing on this logic, some state governments launched a similar scheme for MLAs.

Criticism of the scheme is based on two key arguments. One argument is that it assigns executive functions to legislators and thereby confuses the separation of powers. This creates a conflict of interest between the legislator and the executive and seriously compromises legislators’ oversight function. This is the reason the second Administrative Reforms Commission recommended the scheme be abolished.

... contd.