Back
2010 (4) Supreme 263
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CJI, K.G. Balakrishnan, R.V. Raveendran, D.K. Jain, P. Sathasivam and J.M. Panchal, JJ.
Bhim Singh — Petitioner
versus
Union of India & Ors. — Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No.21 of 1999
Decided on : 6-5-2010
Constitution of India,1950- Article 282 - MPLAD scheme –Constitutional Validity of -Plea of petitioner that Article 282 contemplates that identification of a public purpose should precede making of a grant because without such exercise being made can be taken- Under the MPLAD scheme, it was contended that grant precedes the identification of particular public purpose, and this was contrary to Article 282-Held analysis of Article 282 coupled with other provisions of the Constitution showed that no restriction could be placed on the scope and width of Article by reference to other Articles or provisions in Constitution as said Article is not subject to any other Article in the Constitution- Further this Article empowers Union and the States to exercise their spending power to matters not limited to the legislative powers conferred upon them and in the matter of expenditure for a public purpose subject to fulfillment of such other provisions as may be applicable to the Constitution their powers are not restricted or circumscribed-Ever since inception of the Constitution several welfare schemes advancing the public purpose/public interest by grants disbursed by the Union have been implemented- MPLAD is one amongst the several schemes which have been designed and implemented under Article 282. (Para 41)
MPLAD Scheme -Constitutional Validity –Held issue raised by the petitioners that under guide of the Scheme there is arbitrary and malafide use of powers by MPs in allocating the work and using the funds does not hold good -This was because there are three levels of accountability in the working of the Scheme, accountability within the Parliament, the Guidelines, and the steps taken which are recorded in the Annual Reports-The information furnished showed that Scheme had benefited the local community by meeting their various developmental needs - Mere allegation of misuse of funds under the Scheme by some MPs by itself may not be a ground for scrapping of the Scheme as checks and safeguards had been provided- The second level of accountability was provided by Guidelines themselves- Guidelines showed that MPLAD Scheme was for recommendation of works of developmental nature, especially for the creation of durable community assets based on local needs-Clearly, the Scheme did not give a carte blanche to the MPs with respect to the kind of works they could recommend-Again under the Guidelines, once the MP recommended any work, District Authority in whose jurisdiction, the proposed works are to be executed, had to maintain proper accounts, follow proper procedure for sanction and implementation for timely completion of works. (Paras 46 to 54)
Constitution of India,1950-Writ petitions filed by petitioners challenging Members of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme as ultra vires of Constitution of India-Petitioners also prayed for direction from Court for scrapping of MPLAD Scheme and for impartial investigation for misuse of funds allocated in the Scheme-Held Scheme only supplemented efforts of State and other local Authorities and did not seek to interfere in the functional as well as financial domain of the local planning authorities of the State- On the other hand, it only strengthened the welfare measures taken by them- The Scheme, in its present form, does not override any powers vested in State Government or local authority- The implementing authorities can sanction a scheme subject to compliance with the local laws- Various guidelines showed that Scheme had to be implemented with the co-ordination of various authorities and subject to the supervision and control of the nodal Ministry i.e. Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation- The respondents highlighted that collective responsibility ensures in implementing Scheme and over the years, various checks were also put in place, including the measures to make the scheme more transparent in all respects- Hence held that Government of India was not delegating its power to Members of Parliament to spend the money contrary to mandate of constitutional provisions. (Para 57)
Constitution of India,1950-Writ petitions filed by petitioners challenging Members of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme as ultra vires of Constitution of India-Petitioners also prayed for direction from Court for scrapping of MPLAD Scheme and for impartial investigation for misuse of funds allocated in the Scheme-Held Owing to the quasi-federal nature of the Constitution and the specific wording of Article 282, both the Union and State have the power to make grants for a purpose irrespective of whether the subject matter of the purpose falls in the Seventh Schedule provided that the purpose is “public purpose” within the meaning of the Constitution- Scheme falls within the meaning of “public purpose” aiming for the fulfillment of the development and welfare of the State as reflected in the Directive Principles of State Policy- The power under Article 282 to sanction grant is not restricted- “Laws” mentioned in Article 282 would also include Appropriation Acts- A specific or special law need not be enacted by the Parliament to resort to the provision- Thus,MPLAD Scheme is valid as Appropriation Acts have been duly passed year after year- Even though MPs have been given a seemingly executive function, their role is limited to `recommending’ works and actual implementation is done by the local authorities- There is no removal of checks and balances since these are duly provided and have to be strictly adhered to by guidelines of the Scheme and the Parliament- Hence Scheme does not violate separation of powers- Panchayat Raj Institutions, Municipal as well as local bodies have also not been denuded of their role or jurisdiction by the Scheme as due place has been accorded to them by the guidelines, in the implementation of Scheme-The court can strike down a law or scheme only on basis of its vires or unconstitutionality but not on basis of its viability- When a regime of accountability is available within the Scheme, held not proper for the Court to strike it down, unless it violates any constitutional principle- -Hence impugned MPLAD Scheme held valid and intra vires of the Constitution –Writ petitions having no merit dismissed. (Paras 76, 77)
Facts of the Case :
Writ petitions were filed by petitioners herein in the instant case challenging Members of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme as ultra vires of Constitution of India.Petitioners also prayed for direction from Court for scrapping of MPLAD Scheme and for impartial investigation for misuse of funds allocated in the Scheme.
Findings of the Court :
The Court held that Owing to the quasi-federal nature of the Constitution and the specific wording of Article 282, both the Union and State have the power to make grants for a purpose irrespective of whether the subject matter of the purpose falls in the Seventh Schedule provided that the purpose is “public purpose” within the meaning of the Constitution. Scheme falls within the meaning of “public purpose” aiming for the fulfillment of the development and welfare of the State as reflected in the Directive Principles of State Policy. The power under Article 282 to sanction grant is not restricted. “Laws” mentioned in Article 282 would also include Appropriation Acts. A specific or special law need not be enacted by the Parliament to resort to the provision. Thus,MPLAD Scheme is valid as Appropriation Acts have been duly passed year after year. Even though MPs have been given a seemingly executive function, their role is limited to `recommending’ works and actual implementation is done by the local authorities.There is no removal of checks and balances since these are duly provided and have to be strictly adhered to by guidelines of the Scheme and the Parliament. Hence Scheme does not violate separation of powers. Panchayat Raj Institutions, Municipal as well as local bodies have also not been denuded of their role or jurisdiction by the Scheme as due place has been accorded to them by the guidelines, in the implementation of Scheme.Again,the court can strike down a law or scheme only on basis of its vires or unconstitutionality but not on basis of its viability. When a regime of accountability is available within the Scheme, held not proper for the Court to strike it down, unless it violates any constitutional principle.Hence impugned MPLAD Scheme was held valid and intra vires of the Constitution .Writ petitions having no merit were dismissed.
JUDGMENT
P. Sathasivam, J. —
1)The petitioners have filed the above writ petitions challenging the Members of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme (hereinafter referred to as the “MPLAD Scheme”) as ultra vires of the Constitution of India. They also prayed for direction from this Court for scrapping of the MPLAD Scheme and for impartial investigation for the misuse of the funds allocated in the Scheme.
2)Though the challenge in the writ petitions and the transferred cases is to the constitutional validity of the MPLAD Scheme, in view of substantial question of interpretation of Articles 275 and 282 of the Constitution of India are involved, particularly, transfer of funds from the Union Government to the Members of Parliament, by reference dated 12th July, 2006 a three-Judge Bench headed by Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India referred the same to a Constitution Bench. In this way, the above matters are heard by this Constitution Bench.
3)Brief facts:
On 23.12.1993, the then Prime Minister announced the MPLAD Scheme. This scheme was formulated for enabling the Members of Parliament to identify small works of capital nature based on locally felt needs in their constituencies. The objective, as seen from the guidelines of the Scheme, is to enable the Members of Parliament to recommend works of developmental nature with emphasis on the creation of durable community assets based on the locally felt needs to be taken up in their Constituencies. The guidelines prescribe that right from inception of the Scheme, durable assets of national priorities viz., drinking water, primary education, public health, sanitation and roads etc. are being created. In 1993-94, when the Scheme was launched, an amount of Rs.5 lakh per Member of Parliament was allotted which became rupees one crore per annum from 1994- 95 per MP Constituency. This was stepped up to rupees two crores from 1998-99. Initially the Scheme was under the control of the Ministry of Rural Development and Planning and thereafter in October, 1994, it was transferred to the Ministry of Statistics & Programme Implementation. The Scheme is governed by a set of guidelines which were first issued by the Ministry of Rural Development in February, 1994. After the Scheme was transferred to the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, revised guidelines were issued in December, 1994, February, 1997, September, 1999, April, 2002 and November, 2005.
4)After taking us through the various constitutional provisions, the MPLAD Scheme and its guidelines, Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel, appearing for the petitioner in Writ Petition (C) No. 21/1999 made the following submissions:
(i) No money should be spent from the Consolidated Fund of Union other than one provided under the Constitution of India.
(ii) Instead of decision taken by Union of India under Article 282 of the Constitution about “public purpose”, it has given power to a Member of Parliament, which violates Article 282 of the Constitution of India.
(iii)MPLAD Scheme is a total abdication of powers and functions by the Union of India. Such a wholesale transfer of funds for the benefit of works or projects cannot be executed under Article 275 as “grants-in-aid of the revenues of a State”, without proper recommendation of the Finance Commission.
(iv) The executive powers of the Union under Article 73 are co-extensive with the legislative powers of the Parliament, hence even executive powers of the Union cannot be exercised contrary to the entries in the List in Schedule VII of the Constitution so as to encroach on a subject falling in List II.
(v) The MPLAD Scheme is contrary to the 73rd and 74th Amendments to the Constitution of India. After the 73rd and 74th Amendments, the entire area of local self-government has been entrusted to Panchayats under Article 243G and to the Municipalities under Articles 243W, 243ZD and 243ZE read with Schedule- XII of the Constitution. By virtue of the said Amendments, the decision making pow
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
