Which of the following statements is not correct regarding the Members of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme (MPLADS)?
- (a)Members of the Parliament (MPs) sanction, execute and complete works under the scheme.
- (b)Nominated Members of the Parliament can recommend works for implementation anywhere in the country.
- (c)The scheme is fully funded by the Government of India.
- (d)The annual entitlement per MP is ₹5 crore.
Correct — A, Members of the Parliament (MPs) sanction, execute and complete works under the scheme. Under MPLADS an MP only recommends works; the District Authority holds the power to sanction them, releases the money and gets them executed through an implementing agency. That separation is the design of the scheme, and it is why the funds go from the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation to the district authorities and never to an MP. The other three statements are accurate. Nominated Members of the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha may select works in one or more districts anywhere in the country, since they have no constituency of their own. The scheme is fully funded by the Government of India. And the annual entitlement has stood at Rs 5 crore per MP since 2011-12, released in two instalments of Rs 2.5 crore.
- (b)Nominated Members of the Parliament can recommend works for implementation anywhere in the country. — This is correct, so it cannot be the answer. Nominated members are not elected from any constituency, so the guidelines let them choose works in one or more districts anywhere in India.
- (c)The scheme is fully funded by the Government of India. — Correct. MPLADS is a central sector scheme financed entirely by the Union government, with the money routed to district authorities rather than to the MPs.
- (d)The annual entitlement per MP is ₹5 crore. — Correct as of this paper. The entitlement began at Rs 5 lakh per MP in 1993-94 and was raised in stages to Rs 5 crore from 2011-12, paid in two instalments of Rs 2.5 crore.
MPLADS was launched in December 1993 and is administered by the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation. Its purpose is to let an MP recommend durable community assets — drinking water, education, public health, sanitation, roads — in the area he or she represents. Lok Sabha members recommend within their constituency, elected Rajya Sabha members anywhere in the state that elected them, and nominated members anywhere in the country.
The false statement is the one that collapses a deliberate separation of powers. Recommending and sanctioning are kept in different hands so that the money is spent under district-administration rules and audit, and reading the scheme as one where MPs themselves sanction and execute works misses the whole architecture. Two more guideline facts are worth carrying because UPSC has tested them directly: at least fifteen per cent of the funds are to go to areas with Scheduled Caste populations and seven and a half per cent to Scheduled Tribe areas, and the funds are non-lapsable, so an unspent balance carries forward. Present-day note: MPLADS was suspended for two years from April 2020 to meet pandemic costs and restored from November 2021, and the annual entitlement has since been revised upward.
- MPs recommend works under MPLADS; the District Authority sanctions them and arranges execution through an implementing agency.
- The annual entitlement was Rs 5 crore per MP from 2011-12, released in two instalments of Rs 2.5 crore.
- The scheme is fully funded by the Government of India, with funds released to district authorities and not to MPs.
- Nominated Members of both Houses may select works in one or more districts anywhere in the country.
- Guidelines earmark at least 15 per cent of an MP's funds for areas with Scheduled Caste population and 7.5 per cent for Scheduled Tribe areas, and the district authority must inspect at least 10 per cent of works each year.
- Reading recommend as sanction; the scheme keeps the two apart on purpose.
- Assuming unspent MPLADS money lapses at the end of the year — it does not.
As a which-statement-is-not-correct item, or as a statement-set on the earmarks, the non-lapsable rule and the inspection duty.
With reference to the funds under Members of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme (MPLADS), which of the following statements are correct? 1. MPLADS funds must be used to create durable assets like physical infrastructure for health, education, etc. 2. A specified portion of each MP's fund must benefit SC/ST populations. 3. MPLADS funds are sanctioned on yearly basis and the unused funds cannot be carried forward to the next year. 4. The district authority must inspect at least 10% of all works under implementation every year. Select the correct answer using the code given below:
- (a) 1 and 2 only
- (b) 3 and 4 only
- (c) 1, 2 and 3 only
- (d) 1, 2 and 4 only
Answer(d) 1, 2 and 4 only
Set in the same year, on the same guidelines, and it settles three of the details this item leaves out — durable assets, the SC and ST earmarks, the non-lapsable funds, and the district authority's duty to inspect at least a tenth of the works.
- practice — not a real PYQ
Under MPLADS, who has the power to sanction a work recommended by a Member of Parliament?
- (a)The Member of Parliament
- (b)The District Authority
- (c)The Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation
- (d)The State Government
Answer(b) The District Authority — the MP recommends, the district authority sanctions, funds and gets the work executed.
- practice — not a real PYQ
Which one of the following statements about MPLADS funds is correct?
- (a)Unspent funds lapse at the end of the financial year
- (b)Funds are released directly to the Member of Parliament
- (c)Funds are non-lapsable and carry forward to the next year
- (d)The scheme is funded equally by the Centre and the States
Answer(c) Funds are non-lapsable and carry forward to the next year — the scheme is also fully funded by the Government of India.