TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court Validates MPLAD Scheme: Public Welfare, Legal Funding, and Constitutional Compliance</h1> <h3>Bhim Singh Versus Union of India & Ors.</h3> Bhim Singh Versus Union of India & Ors. - 2010 (5) SCC 538, 2010 (6) SCR 218 Issues Involved:1. Validity of the MPLAD Scheme under Article 282 of the Constitution.2. Requirement of a special enactment for the MPLAD Scheme.3. MPLAD Scheme's consistency with Articles 275 and 280 of the Constitution.4. Separation of powers and the role of MPs in the MPLAD Scheme.5. Compatibility of the MPLAD Scheme with Part IX and IX-A of the Constitution.6. Adequacy of safeguards, checks, and balances in the MPLAD Scheme.7. Potential unfair advantage to MPs under the MPLAD Scheme.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the MPLAD Scheme under Article 282 of the Constitution:The court held that Article 282 allows both the Union and the State to make grants for any public purpose, regardless of whether the subject falls under the Seventh Schedule. The MPLAD Scheme aims to fulfill development and welfare objectives as reflected in the Directive Principles of State Policy, and therefore, falls within the meaning of 'public purpose.' The court emphasized that Article 282 is not restricted and can be used for special, temporary, or ad hoc schemes.2. Requirement of a Special Enactment for the MPLAD Scheme:The court concluded that the Appropriation Acts passed by Parliament year after year suffice as the 'law' required under Article 266(3) for spending from the Consolidated Fund of India. The Appropriation Act is deemed the law for this purpose, and no separate or independent law is necessary. The MPLAD Scheme is valid as it is based on policy decisions with parliamentary sanction in the form of Appropriation Acts.3. MPLAD Scheme's Consistency with Articles 275 and 280 of the Constitution:The court noted that Articles 275 and 282 are both sources of spending funds under the Constitution. While Article 275 pertains to regular and permanent schemes, Article 282 is meant for special, temporary, or ad hoc schemes. The MPLAD Scheme, being a community development initiative, is sanctioned under Article 282 and does not infringe upon the specific financial arrangements devised in the Constitution.4. Separation of Powers and the Role of MPs in the MPLAD Scheme:The court held that the MPLAD Scheme does not violate the principle of separation of powers. The role of MPs is limited to recommending works, while the actual implementation is done by local authorities. This ensures that there is no removal of checks and balances. The court emphasized that the Indian Constitution does not recognize strict separation of powers, and some overlap of functions is permissible.5. Compatibility of the MPLAD Scheme with Part IX and IX-A of the Constitution:The court found that the MPLAD Scheme does not denude Panchayat Raj Institutions or Municipal bodies of their roles or jurisdiction. The guidelines of the Scheme ensure that local bodies are involved in the implementation process. The Scheme supplements the efforts of State and local authorities and does not interfere with their functional and financial domains.6. Adequacy of Safeguards, Checks, and Balances in the MPLAD Scheme:The court noted that the MPLAD Scheme has a robust accountability mechanism. The guidelines provide for multiple levels of accountability, including monitoring by the District Authority, State Government, and the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation. The Scheme is continuously reviewed and revised to improve transparency and efficiency. The court emphasized that the presence of an accountability regime within the Scheme renders it constitutional.7. Potential Unfair Advantage to MPs under the MPLAD Scheme:The court rejected the argument that the MPLAD Scheme gives an unfair advantage to sitting MPs. The Scheme allows MPs to recommend works for community development, which, if properly utilized, benefits the public. The court noted that such spending does not amount to corrupt practices within the meaning of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951, and is subject to the Act and the regulations of the Election Commission.Conclusion:The Supreme Court held that the MPLAD Scheme is valid and intra vires the Constitution. The Scheme is in accordance with Article 282, does not violate the principle of separation of powers, and provides adequate safeguards and accountability mechanisms. The Scheme does not result in an unfair advantage to sitting MPs. Consequently, all writ petitions challenging the MPLAD Scheme were dismissed.
TaxTMI 