New Delhi: A five-Judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court will examine the constitutional validity of the Member of Parliament Local Area Development (MPLAD) Scheme.

On Wednesday, a three-Judge Bench comprising Chief Justice Y.K. Sabharwal, Justice C.K. Thakker and Justice P.K. Balasubramanyan hearing petitions challenging the validity of the scheme referred the matter for hearing by a Constitution Bench since questions of law of public importance were raised.

The brief order said, "The challenge in this petition is to the constitutional validity of MPLAD scheme. During course of arguments it has transpired that substantial question of interpretation of Articles 275 and 282 of the Constitution are involved, particularly in regard to transfer of funds from the Union Government to the State Governments. The interpretation is also to be placed on other provisions of the Constitution. In this view it will be appropriate to refer the case to a Constitution Bench."

Senior counsel K.K. Venugopal, appearing for Bhim Singh, leader of Panthers Party, questioned the scheme on the ground that by giving powers to the MPs to implement the projects, the executive powers had been taken over by the legislatures, which was against the Constitutional scheme. Mr Venugopal also pointed out that under the Constitution, all money from the Consolidated Fund for development scheme had to be sanctioned by the Union Government. Selection of projects for public purpose was the sole prerogative of the executive and the same could not be delegated to the legislatures unless the Parliament has made statutory provisions.

Mr. Venugopal along with counsel Prashant Bhushan also said that resort to Article 282 of the Constitution (expenditure defrayable by the Union or a State out of its revenues) for releasing the funds was impermissible. They argued that the scheme violated Article 14 of the Constitution as arbitrary powers had been conferred on the Member of Parliament without any checks and balances.

Additional Solicitor General Mohan Parasaran, appearing for the Centre, however, defended the scheme saying that there were enough safeguards in the revised guidelines issued by the Government in November 2005 to prevent misuse of the scheme.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail