<h4>Recent Delhi High Court Ruling</h4><p>The <strong>Delhi High Court</strong> recently delivered a significant ruling concerning the <strong>Central Information Commission (CIC)</strong>. It stated that the <strong>CIC</strong> lacks the authority to comment on the utilization of funds under the <strong>Members of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme (MPLADS)</strong>.</p><div class='exam-tip-box'>This ruling clarifies the jurisdictional boundaries between the <strong>CIC</strong>, established under the <strong>Right to Information (RTI) Act</strong>, and the executive functions related to <strong>MPLADS funds</strong>. Understanding this distinction is crucial for <strong>UPSC Mains GS-II</strong>.</div><h4>What is MPLADS?</h4><p>The <strong>Members of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme (MPLADS)</strong> is a <strong>Central Sector Scheme</strong>. It was officially announced in <strong>1993</strong> with the aim of enabling Members of Parliament to initiate developmental works in their constituencies.</p><div class='info-box'><strong>Central Sector Scheme:</strong> A scheme fully funded and implemented by the <strong>Central Government</strong> agencies.</div><h4>Objectives of MPLADS</h4><p>The primary objective of <strong>MPLADS</strong> is to empower <strong>MPs</strong> to recommend works that are developmental in nature. These works focus on creating <strong>durable community assets</strong> within their constituencies.</p><p>Key areas of focus include <strong>drinking water</strong>, <strong>primary education</strong>, <strong>public health</strong>, <strong>sanitation</strong>, and <strong>roads</strong>. These initiatives directly benefit local communities.</p><p>Since <strong>June 2016</strong>, the scope of <strong>MPLADS funds</strong> was expanded. Funds can now be utilized for implementing schemes like <strong>Swachh Bharat Abhiyan</strong>, <strong>Accessible India Campaign (Sugamya Bharat Abhiyan)</strong>, <strong>water conservation through rainwater harvesting</strong>, and <strong>Sansad Adarsh Gram Yojana</strong>.</p><h4>Implementation Mechanism</h4><p>The implementation process for <strong>MPLADS</strong> begins with <strong>Members of Parliament (MPs)</strong>. They recommend specific works to the designated <strong>Nodal District Authority</strong>.</p><p>The <strong>Nodal District Authority</strong> holds the responsibility for executing these eligible works. They also maintain detailed records of all individual projects undertaken and the corresponding expenditure under the scheme.</p><h4>Funding and Recommendation Guidelines</h4><p>Under <strong>MPLADS</strong>, each <strong>MP</strong> receives <strong>Rs. 5 crore annually</strong>. This amount is disbursed in two equal installments of <strong>Rs. 2.5 crore each</strong>.</p><div class='key-point-box'>A significant feature of <strong>MPLADS funds</strong> is that they are <strong>non-lapsable</strong>. This means any unspent amount from a previous year is carried forward to the next year.</div><p><strong>Lok Sabha MPs</strong> are required to recommend projects within their respective <strong>Lok Sabha constituencies</strong>. This ensures development is focused on their electoral area.</p><p><strong>Rajya Sabha MPs</strong>, on the other hand, must recommend works in the state from which they were elected to the Upper House. This provides flexibility for state-level development.</p><p><strong>Nominated Members</strong> of both the <strong>Rajya Sabha</strong> and <strong>Lok Sabha</strong> have the unique privilege of recommending works anywhere across the country. This broadens their impact potential.</p><h4>Lack of Statutory Backing</h4><p>A critical aspect of the <strong>MPLAD Scheme</strong> is its lack of <strong>statutory backing</strong>. It is not governed by any specific law passed by Parliament.</p><p>This absence of a legal framework makes the scheme vulnerable to <strong>arbitrary changes</strong> by the government in power. It can lead to inconsistencies in its operation and objectives.</p><h4>Criticism and Recommendations for Termination</h4><p>The <strong>MPLADS scheme</strong> has faced significant criticism from various authoritative bodies. Both the <strong>National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (2002)</strong> and the <strong>2nd Administrative Reforms Commission (2007)</strong> recommended its termination.</p><div class='info-box'><strong>National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (NCRWC):</strong> Chaired by <strong>Justice M.N. Venkatachaliah</strong>, it submitted its report in <strong>2002</strong>.</div><div class='info-box'><strong>2nd Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC):</strong> Chaired by <strong>Veerappa Moily</strong>, it submitted its report in <strong>2007</strong>.</div><p>Their primary argument against the scheme centers on its perceived <strong>incompatibility with the division of power</strong>. They argue that it blurs the lines between the responsibilities of the <strong>central government</strong> and <strong>state governments</strong>, encroaching upon the domain of local bodies and state legislatures.