Skip to content
PartyReport Cards
HAM(S)

Party report card · current MPs

Hindustani Awam Morcha (Secular)

1 MPs · 1 Lok Sabha · 0 Rajya Sabha · from 1 state

Party score79/100Not ranked (fewer than 3 MPs or no party)
CompareSectors by party

Allocated to its MPs

₹14.70 Cr

1 MPs

Fund utilisation

77%

₹11.30 Cr recommended
Above national figure (72%)

Paid to vendors

₹6.76 Cr

46% of allocation
Above national figure (38%)

Works completed

194

71% of recommended
Above national figure (34%)

From recommendation to completion

All works recommended by this party’s MPs

  1. Recommended by its MPs275 works

    ₹11.30 Cr · 77% of the ₹14.70 Cr allocated

  2. Sanctioned by districts248 works

    90% sanctioned · 4.0 months on average (due within 45 days)

  3. Completed194 works

    ₹6.10 Cr final cost

27 works await sanction, 22 of them for more than 45 days. Sanction is the district authority’s job, not the MP’s.

In plain words

What the numbers say

  • HAM(S)’s 1 MPs were allocated ₹14.70 Cr and recommended works worth ₹11.30 Cr (77%), against 72% for all MPs.
  • ₹6.76 Cr has been paid to vendors, 46% of the allocation (all MPs: 38%).
  • The biggest share of its works’ value went to Roads & bridges (54%).
  • Its highest-scoring MPs: Jitan Ram Manjhi.
  • 0 of its MPs have at least one published warning flag.

How the party score is made

79/100 on all its MPs’ works and money combined. The black marks show all MPs together (59/100). Median MP score: 78.

  1. Works completed 25%71Completed ÷ recommended works.
  2. Spending efficiency 18%90Value of completed works ÷ money paid out. Money paid without works finished scores low.
  3. Fund utilisation 15%77Value of works recommended ÷ allocated limit (MoSPI’s measure).
  4. Proof of work 12%89Share of completed works with photos or documents uploaded on eSAKSHI.
  5. Funds spent 10%46Paid to vendors ÷ allocated limit.
  6. Sanction speed 10%84Average days to sanction (full marks within the 45-day guideline, none at a year), and the share of works not overdue.
  7. Vendor diversity 10%
    i

    Members of Parliament (MPs) do not have direct, operational control over the specific vendors selected for government public works. However, they exert significant indirect influence by shaping procurement frameworks, passing supplier diversity laws, and conducting oversight.

    99    How spread out payments are: full marks when no vendor gets over 20% of the money, none when one vendor gets everything.

Activity over time

Recommendations, payments and completions by month, for this party’s MPs

Value of works MPs recommended each month

Sectors

Share of the value of its works, with the share for all MPs

  1. Roads & bridgesall MPs 28%₹6.21 Cr · 54%
  2. Electricity & lightingall MPs 16%₹1.95 Cr · 17%
  3. Community buildings & public spacesall MPs 26%₹1.28 Cr · 11%
  4. Drinking waterall MPs 5.2%₹1.25 Cr · 11%
  5. Education & librariesall MPs 12%₹50.0 L · 4.3%
  6. Irrigation, flood & environmentall MPs 2.2%₹30.9 L · 2.7%

States

Where its MPs come from

StateMPsUtilisationSpent
Bihar177%46%

Its MPs

Ranked by MP score. Each name opens the MP’s full report card on the MPLADS Tracker.

#MPStateAllocatedUtilisationSpentCompletedScore
1Jitan Ram Manjhi Lok Sabha · GayaBihar₹14.70 Cr77%46%19478

Source: MoSPI eSAKSHI (eSAKSHI API (mplads.mospi.gov.in)); party from the official Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha member lists. Party totals add up its current MPs. Methodology · Scheme guide