In late March this year, Rajya Sabha MP from Odisha, Dr Sasmit Patra, asked the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation (MoSPI) four interrelated questions about the utilisation of funds under the Member of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme (MPLADS).
Launched in 1993, MPLADS, funded by the Government of India, enables MPs to recommend projects to create assets such as roads, school buildings, water facilities and more, for public use.
Among Patra’s questions was one seeking details of funds “released and utilised under the MPLADS scheme during the last five years, including amount remaining unspent.” Another asked about reasons for “lower reported utilisation,” among other things. In response, the Biju Janata Dal parliamentarian received an eight-page statistical reply from the Union statistics ministry. A review of this data by New Delhi Post shows that, even though significant funds were made available for implementing projects recommended by parliamentarians, a large portion consistently went unspent.
>> Growing Spending Gap
In 2021-22, against Rs 1,694 crores released by the government, Rs 1,415.6 crores were spent, marginally higher than the Rs 1,373.88 crores worth of projects recommended by MPs that year. In 2022-23, against an authorised amount of Rs 2,513 crores and recommended projects worth Rs 3,259.88 crores, actual expenditure stood at Rs 2,347.56 crores.
The gap between projects recommended by parliamentarians and actual expenditure grew substantially in subsequent years. In 2023-24, while MPs recommended projects worth Rs. 6,382.8 crores, district authorities could spend only Rs. 4,805.48 crores. In 2024-25, against recommendations worth Rs 2,764.05 crores, actual expenditure was recorded at Rs 1,774.44 crores.
The most recent figures are starker still. Against Rs 4,523.3 crores worth of projects recommended by parliamentarians, the actual expenditure incurred by district-level authorities was just Rs 1,252.81 crores. These numbers do not imply that district authorities completed the recommended works at a lower cost. The format in which MoSPI shared this data with Patra does not clarify the implementation status of all public works recommended over the past five financial years. Under MPLADS guidelines, most recommended works are to be implemented within a year.
While speaking with New Delhi Post, Patra expressed clear dissatisfaction with the ministry’s response, which, despite being laden with statistics, failed to answer his core queries. “The government needs to provide information to show that while Members of Parliament have been sanctioning their funds, the utilisation that is happening on the ground by the district administration and block administration is getting delayed, and this mismatch is not appearing through the answer,” he said.
The MP elaborated with a concrete example. “I sanction Rs. 10 lakh today. Say by year-end, that Rs. 10 lakh is not spent. I should be told why. Now they say that utilisation certificates have not been generated or the works are stopped. There should be clarity about this. The status of recommended projects should be provided through a spreadsheet.”
>> Most Constituencies Fall Short
Patra’s questioning is not an isolated instance of a parliamentarian pressing the government on MPLADS utilisation. In late August 2025, G. Lakshminarayana, a Telugu Desam Party MP, was more direct in his query. He asked the statistics ministry to provide “details of the number of Lok Sabha constituencies where utilisation has remained below 60% and the key reasons therefor”.
The ministry’s reply not only provided the number of such constituencies but also named the states in which they are located. An analysis of this data by New Delhi Post shows that most states and union territories, Tamil Nadu and Chhattisgarh being notable exceptions, had a significantly large number of parliamentary constituencies, nearly half or more, that utilised less than 60 per cent of the funds allocated to them under the scheme. All seven of Delhi’s constituencies, for instance, fell below this threshold.
What is also noteworthy is the difference in how underutilisation is framed in the two parliamentary exchanges. Unlike Patra, who attributed the problem to district and block-level authorities being slow to implement projects recommended by MPs, the data provided to Lakshminarayana pointed to the MPs themselves. Many had recommended works worth less than 60 per cent of their total allocated funds. Yet on the question of reasons, the very heart of the MP’s query, the ministry offered no answer.
>> Unspent Dalit, Adivasi Funds
Taken together, these two examples confirm that the problem of underspending MPLADS allocations has persisted over several years. While it has drawn some media and public attention in the past, it does not appear to have received sustained scrutiny in recent years. An equally serious and related problem, the underutilisation of funds specifically earmarked for areas inhabited by Dalits and Adivasis, has attracted even less attention.
Under the guidelines, every MP is obligated to recommend public works worth at least 15 per cent of their total annual entitlement of Rs 5 crores for areas inhabited by Scheduled Caste populations, and at least 7.5 per cent for areas inhabited by Scheduled Tribe populations, a combined mandatory minimum of 22.5 per cent, or Rs 1.125 crores per MP per year. But many parliamentarians have consistently failed to comply with this mandate.
A little-known evaluation report commissioned by the government and prepared by consulting firm Deloitte in 2021 reveals the scale of this failure. The report evaluated the performance of Members of Parliament who served in the 16th Lok Sabha between 2014 and 2019. “62% of MPs of the 16th Lok Sabha have utilised less than the prescribed provision — 15% in SC areas and 7.5% in ST areas, totalling 22.5% — based on MPR data available in the MPLADS portal,” the report states.
The report also conveyed explanations gathered from District Authorities during on-ground surveys. On the question of underutilisation of funds meant for Dalit and Adivasi areas specifically, district authorities told Deloitte analysts: “Few DAs conveyed that they were not able to justify the under-utilisation, as it is only the State Government that can notify and delimit geographical areas as SC/ST areas. In the absence of such clear notifications and delimitations, DAs were not in a position to provide potential works in SC/ST areas to MPs for recommendations.” The Deloitte report went on to recommend two specific measures to address this problem, both previously unreported.
First, it advised the Union statistics ministry to “consider making SC/ST coverage a mandatory condition for the release of instalments from the second year onwards.” Second, it advised that nodal departments in state governments “may consider issuing an annual list of designated SC or ST areas in each district and inform the concerned District Authority for enforcing the guidelines” that mandate a predetermined percentage of funds be spent in these areas.
The report further suggested that these lists be circulated to Lok Sabha MPs and the statistics ministry, and that MPs be “apprised of the priority and focus sectors for development in SC/ST areas for making informed recommendations of works under MPLADS”.
While the Deloitte report highlighted structural and administrative reasons for this underutilisation, previously unreported documents reviewed by New Delhi Post point to another factor at play: some MPs have actively sought to redirect these ring-fenced funds to communities of their political preference.
A prominent case involves BJP Lok Sabha MP from Mathura, Hema Malini. Documents show the actor-turned-politician wrote twice in 2015 to the minister of state in the statistics ministry, seeking permission to redirect MPLADS funds earmarked for SC and ST areas to those inhabited by Other Backwards Classes instead.
In response to her first letter, written in March 2015, the ministry denied the request. It noted that Mathura has a substantial Dalit population, and suggested that the funds earmarked for Adivasi areas could instead be redirected to Dalit areas, but not to OBC areas.
Hema Malini wrote again on August 21, 2015, reiterating her request and explaining her rationale for seeking exemption from the obligation under para 2.5 of the MPLADS guidelines. “The population of Scheduled Tribes is negligible and the population of Scheduled Castes is found in mixed areas,” she wrote. “This is why a request had been made to seek exemption from the stipulated provision.”
In response, Tapan Mitra, Director (MPLADS) in the statistics ministry, wrote to the district magistrate of Mathura suggesting that, in consultation with the MP, the nodal district authority may send a “justified and logical proposal through the state government, seeking utilisation of the stipulated amount for the welfare of other economically deprived sections of the population in the constituency.”
Whether Hema Malini’s request was ultimately granted remains unclear from the available documents. What is notable, however, is that the Mathura Lok Sabha constituency has a significant population of Jat-caste voters, classified as OBC in Uttar Pradesh’s official records, and a community the BJP has been actively seeking to consolidate support among in recent years.
>> Ministry Shields Inconvenient Findings
A more recent case involving a BJP Rajya Sabha MP points to a broader and troubling pattern of opacity in the ministry’s disclosures on this subject.
On February 9, this year, Rajya Sabha MP Geeta alias Chandraprabha asked multiple interrelated questions about MPLADS funds in the upper house. One specifically asked whether the government had undertaken performance or social audits to assess the effectiveness and timeliness of MPLADS works, “particularly in rural and tribal constituencies,” and if so, what the key findings were and what steps had been taken to strengthen transparency, monitoring and accountability.
In response, the statistics ministry confirmed that it had undertaken a “Third Party Evaluation Study of works executed under MPLADS,” covering the period from April 1, 2019 to March 31, 2024, across 504 nodal districts, including 71 in Uttar Pradesh. It then listed the study’s “key findings”: all of them positive in nature.
Any findings about the scheme’s effectiveness in rural and tribal constituencies, the precise focus of the MP’s question, went entirely unmentioned in the ministry’s reply.
The pattern across these parliamentary exchanges is consistent and concerning: the ministry provides data when pressed, but withholds explanations, omits uncomfortable findings and sidesteps accountability. Meanwhile, hundreds of crores meant for projects in the most marginalised constituencies continue to go unspent year after year.
GFX 1
MPLADS MISFIRE
- Persistent gap between funds recommended and funds utilised across years
- Majority of constituencies spent less than 60% of allocated funds
- Hundreds of crores remain unspent annually
- All seven Delhi constituencies recorded below 60% utilisation
- In several cases, MPs did not recommend projects up to their full allocation
- District authorities struggle to identify eligible projects
- Absence of utilisation certificates, transparent tracking mechanisms
- Adverse findings omitted from official disclosures
- No clear data on project completion status
- System plagued by delays, opacity, weak accountability
- Dalit and Adivasi allocations worst affected
- Lack of clear SC/ST area demarcation by states
- Instances of attempted diversion of SC/ST earmarked funds
GFX 2
Crores Approved, Little Spent
₹4,523.3 cr worth projects recommended; only ₹1,252.81 cr spent (latest data)
- 2023–24: ₹6,382.8 cr recommended vs ₹4,805.48 cr spent
- 2024–25: ₹2,764.05 cr recommended vs ₹1,774.44 cr spent
GFX 3
SC/ST Mandate Violated
Dalit & Adivasi Funds Neglected
- Mandatory allocation:
- 15% for SC areas
- 7.5% for ST areas
- Total: 22.5% (₹1.125 cr per MP annually)
- 62% MPs failed to meet this mandate (16th Lok Sabha)
(Akshay Deshmane is a Delhi-based environmental journalist)
