Quick answer. Every Lok Sabha MP gets ₹5 crore a year under MPLADS (Member of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme). Rajya Sabha MPs get the same: usable across their state. To audit your MP's fund use, file a free RTI to the District Nodal Officer (MPLADS Cell) at your District Magistrate's office. The PIO must reply in 30 days under §7(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, with the work-list, sanction notes, contractors, bills paid, third-party inspection reports, and photographs. Fee: ₹10 (BPL: zero under §7(5)). Sample letter, real recovery case (Tarn Taran, ₹4.7 lakh recovered), full MPLADS Guidelines 2023 + *Bhim Singh* (2010) Constitution Bench playbook below.
MPLADS RTI: at a glance
| 💰 Per-MP entitlement | ⏰ RTI reply | 💸 RTI fee | 🏛 Right office |
|---|---|---|---|
| ₹5 Crore / year – non-lapsable; carries over after term ends | 30 days – Section 7(1), RTI Act 2005 | ₹10 – central authority (BPL = 0) | District Nodal Officer (MPLADS Cell) – at the office of the DM / Deputy Commissioner |
Process flow: ① Find your MP at sansad.in → ② Find work code at mplads.gov.in → ③ RTI to DM's MPLADS Cell PIO → ④ 30-day reply with sanctions + bills + photos → ⑤ §19(1) First Appeal if delayed
MPLADS is a non-lapsable central-sector scheme run by the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation (MoSPI). Each Member of Parliament recommends works (roads, school buildings, drinking water, community toilets, healthcare equipment, sports facilities) up to ₹5 crore per year. The District Magistrate sanctions, supervises and certifies execution. Citizens have full RTI access to every paisa.
Read the legal background. A Constitution Bench addressed the constitutionality of MPLADS in *Bhim Singh* (2010). The challenge: that MPLADS violates the separation of powers because MPs (legislators) effectively perform an executive function (recommending works). The Court held that MPs only recommend: the executive sanctions and disburses; therefore no separation-of-powers violation. Critically, paragraph 96 of the judgment makes RTI the constitutional safeguard against misuse. The Court's exact words (loosely paraphrased): the scheme works only if there is “complete transparency through the Right to Information Act and public scrutiny”. This makes any RTI refusal under MPLADS particularly hard to defend at a §19(1) appeal.
Manjit Kaur, 41, RTI activist from Tarn Taran district, Punjab. In 2025 the village panchayat was told a “community toilet block” had been built under MPLADS funds recommended by their Lok Sabha MP. Cost on file: ₹6.5 lakh. Manjit and her neighbours had not seen any new toilet block.
She went to the panchayat noticeboard on 11 February 2025 and copied the work code: MPL-PB-37/2024-25. She filed an RTI to the District Nodal Officer, MPLADS Cell, Office of DC Tarn Taran asking for: (a) the administrative + technical sanction notes, (b) the work order naming the executing agency and contract value, © the bill paid and the date of debit from MPLADS sub-account, (d) the third-party inspection report mandated under MPLADS Guidelines 2023 paragraph 4.7, (e) photographs of the completed work as required under paragraph 4.10, (f) the utilisation certificate submitted to MoSPI.
Reply on 12 March 2025: Day 29. The work order had been issued to a contractor in Patiala district. The bill of ₹6.5 lakh had been paid on 18 January 2025. There was no third-party inspection report and no photographs. The completion certificate had been signed by the contractor himself, not by the engineering wing.
Manjit filed a complaint to the District Vigilance Officer with the RTI reply attached. Parallel complaint to the Punjab State Information Commission for non-compliance with MPLADS Guidelines paragraph 4.7. Inspection by the Sub-Divisional Engineer happened on 5 April. The toilet block did not exist on the ground.
Result: ₹4.7 lakh recovered from the contractor, the executing engineer suspended, and the Lok Sabha MP demanded a written explanation from the District Nodal Officer.
Total cost to Manjit: ₹62 (₹10 IPO + ₹52 Speed Post AD). Time to recovery: 9 weeks from RTI filing to fund recovery.
: Manjit, June 2025
In FY 2024-25, MoSPI processed ₹4,140 crore of MPLADS sanctions across 543 LS + 243 RS members combined. The CAG Performance Audit Report No 31 of 2017 found systemic leakage in 17 states, much of it surfaced through citizen RTIs like Manjit's. Citizen-led RTIs have produced suspensions and fund recoveries in Punjab, Maharashtra, UP, Bihar, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu since 2018.
To,
The Public Information Officer,
Office of the District Nodal Officer (MPLADS Cell),
Office of the District Magistrate / Deputy Commissioner,
[District name], [State]
Subject: Application under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 -
records relating to MPLADS works recommended in this district
Date: [DD Month YYYY]
Respected Sir / Madam,
1. I, [Your full name], a citizen of India residing at [your address], am filing
this application under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005,
seeking the following records concerning works recommended by Shri / Smt
[MP name], [Lok Sabha / Rajya Sabha] Member of Parliament representing
[constituency / state], under the MPLAD Scheme during financial year
2024-25 onwards (or specify period).
2. Information sought (please supply certified copies and not opinions):
(a) The complete list of works recommended by the said MP for execution in
[District name], with each entry showing: work code, work name, location
(panchayat / ward / address), date of MP's recommendation, sanctioned
amount, executing agency, date of work order, date of fund release,
expected and actual completion dates, status as on date of reply.
(b) Certified copy of the sanction note (administrative sanction + technical
sanction) of work code [MPL-XX-XX/YYYY-YY] (if you know a specific code;
otherwise replace with "the most recently sanctioned 5 works").
(c) Certified copy of the work order issued to the executing agency, naming
the agency, the contract value, and the work-completion timeline as
prescribed under paragraph 3.7 of the MPLADS Guidelines 2023.
(d) Certified copy of the bill paid against the said work, the cheque /
e-payment number, and the date of debit from the MPLADS sub-account.
(e) Certified copy of the third-party inspection report mandated under
paragraph 4.7 of the MPLADS Guidelines 2023, and the photographs of
the completed work as required under paragraph 4.10.
(f) Certified copy of the Utilisation Certificate submitted to MoSPI for
the most recent financial year, with annexures showing fund release,
fund used, fund balance and works completed.
(g) Name, designation, and contact of the District Nodal Officer (MPLADS
Cell) currently posted in this office.
(h) The Grievance Register entries pertaining to MPLADS works in this
district during the period 1 April 2024 onwards.
3. Fee: An Indian Postal Order (IPO) of Rs. 10 in favour of the Accounts
Officer of the above authority is enclosed.
4. Severability: In the event that any part of the information sought is
considered exempt under Section 8 of the RTI Act, I request that the
remainder be disclosed under Section 10(1), with a reasoned severance
order under Section 10(2).
5. Transfer: Should the subject matter lie outside the scope of this office,
I request that the application be transferred under Section 6(3) within
the statutory five days.
6. Constitutional anchor: I respectfully draw attention to *Bhim Singh v.
Union of India* (2010) 5 SCC 538, paragraph 96, where the Constitution
Bench held that MPLADS operates with constitutional sanction only on the
condition of complete transparency through the RTI Act. This RTI is filed
in furtherance of that constitutional safeguard.
7. I respectfully request that the information be supplied within the statutory
period of 30 days under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act. In the event of silence
beyond the said period, I reserve the right to file a First Appeal under
Section 19(1) treating the non-response as a deemed refusal under Section 7(2).
Thank you.
Yours faithfully,
([Your full name])
Applicant details:
Name : [Your full name]
Address : [Your full postal address with PIN]
Phone : [Your phone: optional]
Email : [Your email: optional]
Encl.: Indian Postal Order of Rs. 10 in favour of the Accounts Officer.
Save the time. Use our AI RTI Drafter (free, 60 seconds): it auto-fills your name, address, fee mode, and adapts the questions above to your specific MP / district / work codes. Or use AwaazRTI in any of 11 Indian languages.
| Type | Entitlement | Geographic scope | Right office for RTI |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lok Sabha MP | ₹5 Cr / year | Constituency district + can also do inter-district | DM of any district where works recommended |
| Rajya Sabha MP | ₹5 Cr / year | Anywhere across the state | DM of any district + MoSPI MPLADS Cell |
| Nominated MP | ₹5 Cr / year | Anywhere across India | MoSPI MPLADS Cell, New Delhi |
For LS: the MP's primary district is the natural starting point. For RS: file to MoSPI for the master list, then drill to specific districts. For nominated MPs (e.g., from arts / sports / sciences quota): MoSPI is the primary public authority.
| Day | What happens |
|---|---|
| Day 0 | RTI submitted; AD card kept as proof |
| Day 1-29 | PIO has 30 days to reply under §7(1) |
| Day 30 | Mandatory reply deadline |
| Day 31 | Silence = deemed refusal under §7(2). File First Appeal in next 30 days. |
| Day 31-60 | §19(1) First Appeal to FAA (typically Additional DM / SDO) |
| Day 91+ | §19(3) Second Appeal to State Information Commission (or Central Information Commission for MoSPI-level matters) |
| Day 540+ | Writ petition under Article 226 to the High Court if pendency persists |
Visit sansad.in. For Lok Sabha, click Members and filter by state and constituency. For Rajya Sabha, Members → Listing. Or use our MP/MLA Tracker which jumps straight to the MP for your PIN code.
No. Members of Parliament are not public authorities under the RTI Act. The right targets are the District Nodal Officer (MPLADS Cell) of every district where your MP recommends works, and the MPLADS Cell at MoSPI, New Delhi for the all-India view.
The DM is the principal record holder under MPLADS Guidelines 2023 paragraph 4.5. The DM cannot delegate that responsibility. If pushed back, cite paragraph 4.5 and §5(4) of the RTI Act (PIO must seek assistance of any officer to compile the reply). *Bhagat Singh v. CIC* (Delhi HC, 2007) makes this principle binding.
No. MPLADS funds and CSR funds are separate streams. CSR works are governed by the Companies Act, 2013 and Schedule VII; the records sit with the company's CSR committee, not with the DM. Different RTI route.
Yes: multiple. *Common Cause v. Union of India* (Delhi HC, 2014) directed CAG to audit MPLADS books. The 2017 CAG report found systemic leakage in 17 states. Citizen-led RTIs have produced suspensions and recoveries in Punjab, Maharashtra, UP, Bihar, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu since 2018.
Outside MPLADS. MP travel and personal expenses come from the Salaries and Allowances of Members of Parliament Act, 1954, paid by the Lok Sabha / Rajya Sabha Secretariat. RTI those secretariats separately. See our companion guide RTI for money and schemes.
Yes: that is a public record held in the DM's MPLADS file. Add to query (b) of the sample: “*the MP's recommendation letter dated [date] for the said work, certified copy*”.
Central authorities (which the DM-MPLADS Cell is, via its MoSPI linkage): ₹10. Several states charge ₹50 for state-level RTIs (e.g., Maharashtra, Bihar). See state-wise fee chart. BPL applicants always pay zero under §7(5).
Yes, if you retain Indian citizenship. NRI status does not affect RTI eligibility: citizenship does. The reply will come to your foreign address (you may need to enclose international postage / pre-paid envelope, or use email-only reply via rtionline.gov.in).
No. OCI (Overseas Citizen of India) is not Indian citizenship: RTI does not apply. For OCI matters, use the MEA grievance route or the consular post in your country.
The §7(1) proviso requires reply in 48 hours “where the information sought concerns the life or liberty of a person”. MPLADS-related RTIs typically don't qualify: they're about public funds, not individual liberty. The 30-day window applies.
Yes, citing *Bhim Singh v UoI* (2010) paragraph 96 (constitutional sanction tied to RTI transparency) + *CPIO SC v Subhash Agarwal* (2020) 5 SCC 481 (public-interest balance under §8(2)) + *Girish Deshpande* (2013) 1 SCC 212 (substantive personal-information test). The MPLADS public-fund context strongly favours disclosure.
Marginally. §44(3) of DPDP 2023 (in force 14 November 2025) deleted the proviso to §8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The substantive test for “personal information” is unchanged. The public-interest balance now sits in §8(2) of the RTI Act. For MPLADS records (which are largely public-fund records), the change has minimal effect.
Last reviewed: 4 May 2026 by RTI Wiki editorial team. MPLADS Guidelines + sample format cross-checked against MoSPI 2023 PDF and *Bhim Singh* (2010). Real-life case (Manjit, Tarn Taran) used with consent. Statute citations verified against IndiaCode.