BHIM SINGH vs U.O.I — W.P.(C) No. 21/1999
Case under Section X. Status: Disposed.
CNR: SCIN010002211999
Filing Date
04-Jan-1999
Registration No
W.P.(C) No. 21/1999
Diary Number
221/1999
Order Date
06-May-2010
Document Type
Judgment - of Main Case
Disposal Type
Dismissed
Last updated 29-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.BHIM SINGH
Adv. DINESH KUMAR GARG
Respondent(s)
-
1.U.O.I
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
06-May-2010
Judgment - of Main CaseView PDF
-
06-May-2010
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
21-Jan-2009
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
26-Nov-2008
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
20-Nov-2008
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
29-Aug-2008
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
12-Jul-2006
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
05-Dec-2005
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
08-Feb-2005
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
29-Jul-2004
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
07-Apr-2004
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
10-Mar-2004
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
25-Feb-2004
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
28-Jan-2004
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
13-Jan-2004
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
19-Nov-2003
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
13-Aug-2003
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
18-Feb-2003
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
10-Dec-2002
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
12-Nov-2002
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
07-Aug-2002
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
04-Apr-2002
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
30-Oct-2001
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
23-Aug-2001
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
04-Jan-1999
Case filed
Registration No. W.P.(C) No. 21/1999
Summary of Bhim Singh v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 000021/1999 The Supreme Court's Constitution Bench upheld the constitutional validity of the Members of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme (MPLAD), rejecting petitioners' challenges. The Court held that Article 282 of the Constitution permits the Union to make grants for public purposes irrespective of whether the subject matter falls within the legislative competence of Parliament. The Scheme operates through Appropriation Acts passed annually by Parliament and maintains accountability through District Authorities who verify eligibility, execute works, and furnish completion and audit certificates. The Court found no violation of separation of powers since MPs' role is limited to recommending works while actual implementation rests with local authorities, and no unconstitutional infringement of Panchayat/Municipality functions since these bodies serve as preferred implementing agencies under the guidelines. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts