BHIM SINGH versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2010] 6 S.C.R. 218 · Decided: 06-05-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[2010] 6 S.C.R. 218 
BHIM SINGH 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
(Writ Petition (C) No. 21 of 1999) 
MAY 6, 2-010 
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI., R.V. RAVEENDRAN, D.K. 
JAIN, P. SATHASIVAM AND J.M. PANCHAL, JJ.) 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Arlie/es 113, 114(3), 266(3), 282 - MPLAD scheme -
Constitutionality of - Held: Intra vires the Constitution -
Source of its power traceable to Arlicle 114(3) r. w. Arlicle 
266(3) and 282 of the Constitution - Funds earmarked and 
0 spent from the Consolidated Funds of Union for 
implementation of scheme and thus was in accordance with 
the constitutional provisions - Rules of Procedure and 
Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha - rr.206 to 216. 
Arlicle 266(3) - MPLAD scheme - Whether aparl from 
E an appropriation by an Appropriation Act, an independent 
substantive enactment is required for the scheme - Held: 
·"Laws" mentioned in Article 282 would also include 
Appropriation Acts - A specific or special law need not be 
enacted by the Parliament to resorl to the provision - The 
F MPLAD Scheme is valid as Appropriation Acts have been 
duly passed year after year - Appropriation Act. 
Arlie/es 275 and 282 - MPLAD Scheme - Held: Falls 
within the meaning of "public purpose" aiming for the fulfilment 
G of the development and welfare of the State as reflected in 
the Directive Principles of State Policy. 
H 
Arlicle 282 - Scope of - Held: To be given its widest 
amplitude and should be interpreted widely so that the public 
218 
SHIM SINGH v. UNION OF INDIAAND ORS. 
219 
purpose enshrined therein can effectively be achieved both 
A 
by the Union and the States to advance Directive Principles 
of State policy. 
Article 282, seventh schedule - Public purpose - Power 
of Union and State to make grants - Held: Indian Constitution 
8 
is quasi-federal - Owing to the quasi-federal nature of the 
Constitution and the specific wording of Article 282, both the 
Union and the State have power to make grants on subjects 
irrespective of whether they lie in the 7th Schedule, provided 
they are in public interest. 
c 
Separation of powers - MPLAD Scheme - Whether 
violate the principle of Separation of powers under the 
Constitution - Held: Indian Constitution does not recognize 
strict separation of powers -
Constitutional principle of 
separation of powers would be violated if an essential function 
D 
of one branch is taken over by another branch, leading to a 
removal of checks and balances - Under MPLAD scheme 
though MPs have been given a seemingly executive function, 
their role is limited to 'recommending' works - Actual 
implementation is done by the local authorities - There is no 
E 
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 - Panchayat Raj 
Institutions, Municipal as well as local bodies are also not 
F 
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. 
Accountability under the MPLAD scheme - Role of MP 
in the scheme - Held: Every MP is authorised to only G 
recommend such works which are of general public utility in 
his own constituency - Role of MP is very limited to the initial 
choice of a selection of projects subject to approval of the 
District Authority/Commissioner or Municipal authority - Mere 
a/legation of misuse of funds under the scheme by some MPs 
H 
220 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010) 6 S.C.R. 
A by itself may not be a ground for scrapping of the scheme as 
checks and safeguards are provided therein. 
Funds made available to sitting MPs for developmental 
work under the MPLAD scheme - Claim that these works 
8 would amount to an unfair advantage or corrupt practices 
within the meaning of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 
1951 - Held: Not maintainable - If funds are utilised by MPs 
for development work which result in his better performance 
and if that leads to people voting for the incumbent candidate, 
it certainly would not violate any principle of free and fair 
C elections - It cannot be claimed that these works amount to 
an unfair advantage or corrupt practices - Representation of 
the Peoples Act, 1951 - Unfair practice . 
Interpretation of Constitution Every Article of the 
D Constitution should be given not only the widest possible 
interpretation, but also a flexible interpretat

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.