RTI N POLITICAL PARTIES

ALTHOUGH political parties are the lifeblood of democracy, their organisation and functioning in India, with a few exceptions, have been opaque. This has led to a flawed assumption among political parties, especially the mainstream ones, that they have been able to defend their influence among voters mainly because of the mystique surrounding them. It is no wonder, therefore, that when there are demands to lift the veil surrounding them, most political parties apprehend that they might face a credibility crisis.

Most political parties have refused to consider themselves public authorities under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. An admission that they are public authorities will bring them under compulsion to respond to queries from citizens under the Act regarding their funding and process of decision-making, which so far have remained outside public scrutiny. Information about these aspects in the public domain could pose a serious challenge to these parties, particularly if it is proven that their functioning is characterised by lack of probity and commitment to democratic ideals. A full Bench of the Central Information Commission ruled on June 3 that political parties are public authorities under the RTI Act and are duty-bound to answer queries from information-seekers.

The Bench,  held that the six political parties that are the respondents in this case—the Congress, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the Communist Party of India (Marxist), or the CPI(M), the Communist Party of India (CPI), the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) and the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP)—had been substantially financed by the Central government. Section 2(h)(ii) of the RTI Act states that “public authority” includes any non-governmental organisation substantially financed, directly or indirectly, by funds provided by the appropriate government.

The CIC found that :

large tracts of land in prime areas of Delhi had been placed at the disposal of the political parties that are respondents in this case at exceptionally low rates.

Besides, huge government accommodations have been placed at the disposal of political parties at very cheap rates, thereby bestowing financial benefits on them.

The income tax exemptions granted and the free air time allotted on All India Radio and Doordarshan at the time of elections also have substantially contributed to the financing of the political parties by the Central government.

political parties affect the lives of citizens, directly or indirectly, in every conceivable way and are continuously engaged in performing public duty.

 the political parties come to directly or indirectly influence the exercise of governmental power. “It would be odd to argue that transparency is good for all state organs but not so good for political parties, which, in reality, control all the vital organs of the state,” the CIC said.

 the Association for Democratic Reforms, a non-governmental organisation (NGO), sought specific details of party funding from six major parties—the Congress, the BJP, the NCP, the CPI(M), the CPI, and the BSP—in 2010. Of these, only the CPI informed about the sources of 10 maximum voluntary contributions received by the party for the financial years 2004-05 to 2009-10.

Both Agrawal and Bairwal complained to the CIC, arguing that the political parties fell under the ambit of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act and therefore were mandated to disclose full and complete information to them. The CIC constituted the full Bench to hear the complaints, which raised complex issues of law.

The complainants contended that political parties had constitutional and statutory status. Incorporation of Articles 102(2) and 191(2) through the 42nd Amendment and the 10th Schedule to the Constitution had given them constitutional status. A body or entity does not become a political party in the legal sense until it is registered by the Election Commission under Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and this registration lends it the character of a public authority, the complainants convincingly argued.

The CIC noted that the CPI took contradictory positions in the matter, while vouching for transparency in its accounts. Its general secretary S. Sudhakar Reddy claimed in a letter to the CIC that political parties did not come under the ambit of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, whereas former general secretary A.B. Bardhan had stated in a letter to Bairwal that the CPI was a public authority under Section 2(h). Bardhan had also confirmed to Bairwal that the party had its internal appellate authority, called “Central Control Commission”.

When the CIC issued a formal notice to all the six political parties, only two chose to respond: the NCP and the CPI(M). The NCP claimed that it did not come under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act and therefore was not bound to supply any information. The CPI(M) general secretary, Prakash Karat, submitted the details of the two properties allotted to the party in New Delhi—the A.K. Gopalan Bhavan plot and a Kotla Road plot. He also gave details of the income of the party from 2007-08 to 2011-12. Regarding the question of the quantum of tax exemption the party had availed itself of, Karat took the stand that “Parliament took the decision to exempt the income of the political parties from income tax liabilities with the aim to strengthen the democratic polity in the country as political parties and their activities are its important components.” The CPI(M), too, did not concede that it was a public authority under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.

In their defence, the political parties took the stand that whatever benefits they might have received from the Central government would hardly amount to any substantial financing. The CIC held that there must be evidence of state funding which was not “insubstantial” in order to bring such non-governmental bodies within the ambit of Section 2(h)(ii).

The CIC expressed confidence in its order that bringing political parties in the ambit of the RTI Act was likely to usher in an era of transparency in their functioning. “It would result in strengthening of democracy and democratic institutions in the country,” it ruled.

The CIC directed the presidents and general secretaries of the six political parties to designate central public information officers and appellate authorities at their headquarters in six weeks’ time. The CPIOs so appointed will respond to the RTI applications of Agrawal and Bairwal in four weeks’ time, it ruled. It also asked the parties to comply with the provisions of Sections 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act by way of making voluntary disclosures on their organisation and functioning.

ALMOST all political parties have expressed their apprehensions about the impact of the Central Information Commission (CIC) order, if it goes unchallenged.

The Communist Party of India (CPI), which had initially taken the stand that political parties were “public authorities” under the Right to Information Act, has changed its view, saying such an interpretation will undermine the object of the Act, which is to make the government accountable. Its national secretary, D. Raja, blamed the bureaucrats (who are members of the CIC) for this mischievous interpretation, which he said would result in diluting the object of the Act.

The Communist Party of India (Marxist) is equally apprehensive. It felt that opponents of a political party could now use the Act as a political tool. The CIC, however, said that the possibility of misuse of the Act could not be a ground for its non-application. The CPI(M) believes that the decision betrayed a fundamental misconception about the role of political parties in a parliamentary democracy and apprehends that it will hamper the functioning of a political party. The party asked the government to discuss the issues arising from the decision with all parties in order to preserve the integrity and role of parties in a democratic system.

Janata Dal (United) president Sharad Yadav felt the CIC order treated political parties as though they were retail shops.

Union Finance Minister P. Chidambaram said it was an unusual interpretation of the Act and not based on credible argument.

Information and Broadcasting Minister Manish Tewari had problems with what he saw as the CIC’s attempts to stretch the scope of the Act.

 Arun Jaitley, the BJP’s Leader of the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha, did not totally oppose the CIC order but hinted that other organisations that benefited from the government in many ways also had to be covered under the RTI Act.

 Another BJP leader, Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi, wondered whether political parties would now be accountable to both the Election Commission and the CIC and added that this confusion was not good for democracy.

The party’s spokesperson, Nirmala Sitharaman, wanted the E.C. to clear the confusion about the overlapping powers of the E.C. and the CIC with regard to the functioning of political parties.

The government seems likely to appeal against the order in the High Court or amend the Act itself to keep political parties outside the purview of the Act. The debate, therefore, is set to continue.

Complainant clarifies

In response to the apprehensions expressed by the political parties on the CIC’s verdict, the complainant, Subhash Chandra Agrawal, made the following points.

•Section 8(1) with 10 sub-clauses under the RTI Act which mention exemptions from disclosure of information will provide sufficient powers to political parties for denying information.

•Political parties can also use Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, which empowers public authorities to decline any information.

•Political parties can suo motu declare maximum information on their websites under Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act to avoid a large number of RTI petitions coming to them. Even for future, they can update their websites accordingly on the basis of information most sought under the RTI Act.

•The RTI Act will make political parties accountable to the public and not to the Central Information Commission.

The CIC will have a role to play only when the petitioner files an appeal with the CIC after crossing two initial stages, including a first appeal filed with the appellate authority appointed by the political party against the response given by the public information officer of the party. There is no supervisory or disciplinary role of the CIC under the RTI Act.

•The RTI Act provides for only giving information that is materially available on record. Verbal deliberations within party forums cannot be termed material available on record unless there is a provision to get it recorded in audio or video. Since there is no practice of recording such deliberations within party forums, the apprehension about disclosure of strategic deliberations is baseless.

•The RTI Act does not provide for giving reasoning of any decisions taken or queries put in the form of “why”. Therefore, doubts that questions will be asked on aspects like selection of candidates are misconceived.

•The RTI Act is not applicable to private retail shops; therefore, the comparison of political parties to retail shops is contrary to facts.

CIC puts 6 parties on notice for not implementing RTI

10/02/14

The Central Information Commission on Monday issued notices to the Congress, Bharatiya Janata Party, Nationalist Congress Party, Communist Party of India (Marxist), Communist Party of India and Bahujan Samaj Party asking them to furnish details of action taken by them to implement the Right to Information Act as per the Commission’s order. The CIC gave the six political parties four weeks to submit their replies.

The Commission’s order came in response to a representation by RTI activist Subhash Agrawal seeking compliance of its earlier order asking the political parties to implement the RTI Act.

The CIC, which is a quasi-judicial body on matters relating to the RTI Act, in June last year had declared that the parties were “public authorities” under the RTI Act arguing that they were “substantially funded” indirectly by the Central Government. It had given them ten weeks to implement the law by appointing Public Information Officers to respond to RTI queries, but so far none of the parties has followed the CIC direction.

“It is directed that the detailed comments on the said representations received from Mr. Agrawal and the details of the action taken on the directions contained in the Commission’s order of June 3, 2013, may be furnished to the Commission within four weeks,” the CIC said in its notice issued to the parties.

The full bench of the commission, comprising the then Chief Information Commissioner Satyananda Mishra and Information Commissioners M.L. Sharma and Annapurna Dixit had declared on June 3, 2013, “We have no hesitation in concluding that the INC/AICC, the BJP, the CPI (M), the CPI, the NCP and the BSP have been substantially financed by the Central Government and, therefore, they are held to be public authorities under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.”

The Commission then directed the presidents and general-secretaries of the six political parties to designate Central Public Information Officers and the Appellate Authorities at their headquarters in six weeks and to respond to RTI queries in the next four weeks. The CIC had also directed the parties to comply with the provisions of mandatory proactive disclosure by putting those details on their websites. But none of the political parties followed the order so far.