New Delhi, Jan 21: The Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved its verdict on the constitutional validity of the MPLAD Scheme under which members of parliament are allocated Rs two crore annually for development of their constituencies.
A five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice K
G Balakrishnan examined the scheme in which it also sought the
assistance of Solicitor General G E Vahanvati as amicus curiae.
The Bench, also comprising Justices R V Raveendran, D
K Jain, P Sathasivam and J M Panchal, reserved its verdict
after a marathon hearing in which the Centre opposed the
contention that in the absence of any guidelines, the funds
allocated under the scheme were misused by MPs.
The scheme had come under judicial scrutiny after a
sting operation in 2005 had shown some MPs allegedly demanding
money from contractors to award work for projects under MPLAD
scheme. The expose had led to the expulsion of the members
from both the Houses of Parliament.
The MPLAD scheme had been in the news in 2006 due to
allegations that trusts run by Election Commissioner Navin
Chawla`s family got funds from the scheme.
A three-judge Bench on July 12, 2006 had referred the
matter to a five-judge Constitution Bench observing that
important questions of law needed to be settled.
The scheme was first challenged in 1999 by Jammu and
Kashmir National Panthers Party Chief Bhim Singh and an NGO,
Common Cause, alleging that in the absence of any guidelines,
the funds allocated under the scheme were misused by MPs.
Later, petitions were also filed in various High Courts
and on the Centre`s intervention all the petitions were
transferred to the apex court.
The Solicitor General submitted that Parliament has
plenary power to sanction expenditure under Article 113 (2) of
the Constitution and Rules 206 to 217 of the "Rules of
Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha".
He said like other schemes -- Jawahar Rozgar Yojna,
Indira Gandhi Old Age Pension Scheme and Integrated Child
Development Scheme, MPLAD Scheme is also a welfare measure
implemented with the assistance of the local authorities.
The funds under the MPLAD (Member of Parliament Local
Area Development) Scheme were directly released by the Centre
to the district authorities and it did not go directly in the
hands of the MP.
The Centre had defended the scheme and said that
it had the authority of law to release money under it as the
funds were withdrawn from the Consolidated Fund of India by
the passing Appropriation Bill.
Senior advocate K K Venugopal, who had opened the
arguments had alleged the scheme was violative of Article
14 of the Constitution (Right to Equality) as it gave
arbitrary powers to an MP without there being proper checks
and balances, monitoring and accountability regarding the
money being spent under it.
An NGO, Lok Sevak Sangh, had contended that it gives an
unfair advantage to serving MPs over their rival candidates
in elections.
The NGO said the powers exercised or enjoyed by the
MPs by virtue of MPLAD scheme results in discrimination
between various sections of the society in allocation of the
work.
It was argued that though there is a provision in the
guidelines that an MP who does not want to use his funds may
withdraw from the scheme, it has not been done by any of them.
Bureau Report
