Party report card · current MPs
Indian Union Muslim League
5 MPs · 3 Lok Sabha · 2 Rajya Sabha · from 2 states
Allocated to its MPs
₹91.82 Cr
5 MPs
Fund utilisation
81%
₹74.79 Cr recommended
Above national figure (72%)
Paid to vendors
₹26.70 Cr
29% of allocation
Below national figure (38%)
Works completed
343
27% of recommended
Below national figure (34%)
From recommendation to completion
All works recommended by this party’s MPs
- Recommended by its MPs1,266 works
₹74.79 Cr · 81% of the ₹91.82 Cr allocated
- Sanctioned by districts840 works
66% sanctioned · 6.4 months on average (due within 45 days)
- Completed343 works
₹18.88 Cr final cost
426 works await sanction, 409 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
- IUML’s 5 MPs were allocated ₹91.82 Cr and recommended works worth ₹74.79 Cr (81%), against 72% for all MPs.
- ₹26.70 Cr has been paid to vendors, 29% of the allocation (all MPs: 38%).
- The biggest share of its works’ value went to Roads & bridges (45%).
- Its highest-scoring MPs: Shri Abdul Wahab, Kani K Navas, Dr. M.P Abdussamad Samadani.
- 2 of its MPs have at least one published warning flag.
How the party score is made
61/100 on all its MPs’ works and money combined. The black marks show all MPs together (59/100). Median MP score: 57.
- Works completed 25%27Completed ÷ recommended works.
- Spending efficiency 18%71Value of completed works ÷ money paid out. Money paid without works finished scores low.
- Fund utilisation 15%81Value of works recommended ÷ allocated limit (MoSPI’s measure).
- Proof of work 12%89Share of completed works with photos or documents uploaded on eSAKSHI.
- Funds spent 10%29Paid to vendors ÷ allocated limit.
- Sanction speed 10%61Average days to sanction (full marks within the 45-day guideline, none at a year), and the share of works not overdue.
- Vendor diversity 10%93How spread out payments are: full marks when no vendor gets over 20% of the money, none when one vendor gets everything.
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.
Activity over time
Recommendations, payments and completions by month, for this party’s MPs
Sectors
Share of the value of its works, with the share for all MPs
States
Where its MPs come from
| State | MPs | Utilisation | Spent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kerala | 4 | 87% | 27% |
| Tamil Nadu | 1 | 52% | 41% |
Its MPs
Ranked by MP score. Each name opens the MP’s full report card on the MPLADS Tracker.
| # | MP | State | Allocated | Utilisation | Spent | Completed | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Shri Abdul Wahab Rajya Sabha | Kerala | ₹31.27 Cr | 86% | 32% | 132 | 68 |
| 2 | Kani K Navas Lok Sabha · Ramanathapuram | Tamil Nadu | ₹14.70 Cr | 52% | 41% | 68 | 65 |
| 3 | Dr. M.P Abdussamad Samadani Lok Sabha · Ponnani · 1 flag | Kerala | ₹17.04 Cr | 97% | 16% | 62 | 57 |
| 4 | E.T. Mohammed Basheer Lok Sabha · Malappuram | Kerala | ₹16.39 Cr | 78% | 36% | 61 | 56 |
| 5 | Shri Haris Beeran Rajya Sabha · 1 flag | Kerala | ₹12.43 Cr | 87% | 17% | 20 | 54 |
Warning flags among its MPs
Published threshold rules: prompts for questions, not findings
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