Case: Bhim Singh Vs. Union of India & Others


Decision:
0[ds]21) The above Articles make it clear that the Union or the State is empowered to spend money from the Consolidated Fund strictly in accordance with the relevant provisions. In other words, if Union of India intends to spend money from the Consolidated Fund of India, it shall be submitted in the form of demands for grants and only after approval by the Parliament, the same are to be spent for variousVarious Articles and the Rules of Procedure abundantly show that the Lok Sabha has the final control over expenditure. After the grant has been voted and accepted by the Parliament in terms of Article 113(2), a Bill is introduced. Under Article 114, a Bill has to be introduced to provide for appropriation of payments out of the Consolidated Fund of India. Such Bills are called Appropriation Bills. An Appropriation Bill is a Money Bill in terms of Article 110(1)(d), which has to be introduced as per Article 107 and has to be dealt with under Article 109. The procedure makes it clear that the recommendations of the Council of States are not binding on the House of People. The relevant Articles and the Rules of Procedure referred to above clearly showThe Financial Statement has to be laid before both the Houses of Parliament in terms of Article 112;(2) The estimates in relation to expenditure and demands for grants can only be discussed by the House of the People vide Article 113;(3) After the grants are approved, as per Article 114, the same are incorporated in the Appropriation Bill;(4) The Appropriation Bill is a Money Bill and a Money Bill cannot be introduced in the Council of States while the Annual Financial Statement is to be laid before both the Houses, a Money Bill can only be introduced in the House of the People vide Article 110;(5) While the Council of States has no role to play in the matter of sanction of expenditure and demand for grants, in relation to a Money Bill, it can only make recommendations vide Article 109(2). This may or may not be accepted by the House of theIf we analyze the abovementioned Articles and the Rules of Procedure, the argument that the Appropriation Act by itself is not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Article 266(3) cannot be accepted. It is true that the activity of spending monies on various projects has to be separately provided by a law. However, if Union Government intends to spend money for public purpose and for implementing various welfare schemes, the same are permitted by presenting an Appropriation Bill which is a Money Bill and by laying the same before the Houses of Parliament and after getting the approval of the Parliament, Lok Sabha, in particular, it becomes law and there cannot be any impediment in implementing the same so long as the Scheme is for the publicAs rightly pointed out by learned amicus curiae and learned Additional Solicitor General, the `law here is the Appropriation Act, traceable to Article 114(3) and the purpose is for the scheme and the moneys withdrawn for outlay for the scheme from out of the Consolidated Fund of India in the manner as provided in the Constitution. We are satisfied that all the tests laid down under the provisions of Article 266(3) have also been fully satisfied in the implementation of the MPLAD Scheme. Further Article 283(1) provides that `law made by the Parliament shall regulate withdrawal of money from Consolidated Fund of India. The Appropriation Act passed as per the provisions of Article 114 is `law for the purpose of the Constitution of India and the respondents are fully justified in claiming that no separate or independent law is necessary since an item of expenditure forming part of the MPLAD Scheme or the activity on which the expenditure is incurred also, forms part and parcel of such AppropriationIt is clear that no independent enactment is required to be passed. As rightly pointed out, neither Government of India nor any State is taking away the rights of anyone or going to set up any business or creating any monopoly for itself nor acquiring any property. It is only implementing a Scheme for the welfare of the people with the sanction and approval of the Parliament. We are satisfied that for the purpose of imposing restrictions on the rights conferred under Article 19 or Article 300A, there may be requirement of an independent law but not for the purposes of satisfying the requirement of ArticleIn this context, the scope of Article 282 requires to be considered. Article 282 allows the Union to make grants on subjects irrespective of whether they lie in the 7th Schedule, provided it is in public interest. Every Article of the Constitution should be given not only the widest possible interpretation, but also a flexible interpretation to meet all possible contingencies which may arise even in the future. No Article of the Constitution can be given a restrictive and narrow interpretation, particularly, when the said Article is not otherwise subject to any other Article in the Constitution. Article 282 is not an insertion by the Parliament at a later date, on the other hand, the said Article has been in the Constitution right from the inception and has been invoked for implementation of several welfare measures by CentralFrom the perusal of the above clauses contained in the guidelines of MPLAD Scheme, it is clear that there has been a close coordination between the authorities, namely, the Central Government, State Government and the District Authorities. It is also clear that every Member of Parliament (Lok Sabha) is authorized to only recommend such works which would be of general public utility in his own constituency that too for a public purpose. The Member of Rajya Sabha is to select work as per the scheme in his State. The role of the Member of Parliament is very limited to the initial choice of a selection of projects subject to the choice of project being found eligible by the District Authority/Commissioner or Municipal Authority, if found otherwise feasible.46) The issue raised by the petitioners that under the guise 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 in the light of the following information: There are three levels of accountability which emerge from a study of the working of the Scheme, (1) the accountability within the Parliament, (2) the Guidelines, and (3) the steps taken which are recorded in the AnnualFurther, the Scheme only supplements the efforts of the State and other local Authorities and does 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 strengthens the welfare measures taken by them. The Scheme, in its present form, does not override any powers vested in the State Government or the local authority. The implementing authorities can sanction a scheme subject to compliance with the local laws. Various guidelines make it clear that the Scheme has 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 have highlighted that the collective responsibility ensures in implementing the Scheme and over the years, various checks are also put in place, including the measures to make the scheme more transparent in all respects. We are satisfied that the Government of India is not delegating its power to the Members of Parliament to spend the money contrary to the mandate of the constitutionalIn the present case, we are satisfied that there is no violation of concept of separation of powers. As we have noted above, there is no rigid separation of powers under the Constitution and each one of the arms at times perform other functions as well. The Member of Parliament is ultimately responsible to Parliament for his action as an MP even under the Scheme. All Members of Parliament be it a Member of Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha or a nominated Member of Parliament are only seeking to advance public interest and public purpose and it is quite logical for the Member of Parliament to carry out developmental activities to the constituencies they represent. There is no reason to believe that the MPLAD Scheme would not be effectively controlled and implemented by the District Authority in the case of Panchayats and Commissioners/Chief Executive Officers, in the case of Municipalities and Corporations with adequate safeguards under the guidelines.70) Furthermore, Chapter 3 of the Guidelines provide the procedure to be followed for the implementation of the Scheme. As per the guidelines, the MPs function is merely to "recommend a work" [vide Chapter 3.1]. The District Authority and Chief Executive Officer have been entrusted with the absolute authority to discharge upon the feasibility of works recommended, assess the funds required for execution of the work, implementation of works by engaging an implementing agency, supervision of work and ensure financial transparency by providing audit certificates and utilization certificate. As such it is clear that the District Authority and Municipal Authority play a pivotal role in implementation and execution of MPLAD Scheme. Major role is played by Panchayats, Municipalities and Corporations under MPLAD Scheme in execution and implementation of works. As rightly pointed out by the learned amicus curiae and Additional Solicitor General, the Scheme concentrates on community development and creation of assets at the grass-root level and in such circumstances, the same cannot be interfered with by the courts without reasonable grounds. As mentioned earlier, the role of an MP in MPLAD Scheme is merely recommendatory in nature and the entire execution has been entrusted to the District/Municipal Authority which belongs to the executive organ. It is their responsibility to furnish completion certificate, audit certificate and utilization certificate for each work and if this is not done further funds can not beWe are not inclined to accept this contention raised by the petitioners. The extracts of the Guidelines we have produced above make it clear that even though the District Authority is given the power to identify the agency through which a particular work recommended by the MP should be executed, the Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) will be the preferred Implementing Agency in the rural areas, through the Chief Executive of the respective PRI, and the Implementing Agencies in the urban areas would be urban local bodies, through the Commissioners/Chief Executive Officers of Municipal Corporations,This argument is liable to be rejected as it is not based on any scientific analysis or empirical data. We also find this argument a half-hearted attempt to contest the constitutionality of the Scheme. MPLADS makes funds available to sitting MPs for developmental work. If the MP utilizes the funds properly, it would result in his better performance. If that leads to people voting for the incumbent candidate, it certainly does not violate any principle of free and fair elections.75) As we have already noted, MPs are permitted to recommend specific kinds of works for the welfare of the people, i.e. which relate to development and building of durable community assets (as provided by Chapter 1.3 of the Guidelines). These works are to be conducted after approval of relevant authorities. In such circumstances, it cannot be claimed that these works amount to an unfair advantage or corrupt practices within the meaning of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951. Of course such spending is subject to the above Act and the regulations of the ElectionOwing to the quasi-federal nature of the Constitution and the specific wording of Article 282, both the Union and the 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.2) The 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.3) Both Articles 275 and 282 are sources of spending funds/monies under the Constitution. Article 282 is normally meant for special, temporary or ad hoc schemes. However, the matter of expenditure for a "public purpose", is subject to fulfillment of the constitutional requirements. The power under Article 282 to sanction grant is not restricted.4) "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, the MPLAD Scheme is valid as Appropriation Acts have been duly passed year after year.5) Indian Constitution does not recognize strict separation of powers. The constitutional principle of separation of powers will only be violated if an essential function of one branch is taken over by another branch, leading to a removal of checks and balances.6) 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 the guidelines of the Scheme and the Parliament. Therefore, the Scheme does not violate separation of powers.7) 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 the Scheme.8) The court can strike down a law or scheme only on the basis of its vires or unconstitutionality but not on the basis of its viability. When a regime of accountability is available within the Scheme, it is not proper for the Court to strike it down, unless it violates any constitutional principle.9) In the present Scheme, an accountability regime has been provided. Efforts must be made to make the regime more robust, but in its current form, cannot be struck down as unconstitutional.10) The Scheme does not result in an unfair advantage to the sitting Members of Parliament and does not amount to a corrupt practice.