by Jayan P.A.
The Chief Information Commission's (CIC) order on bringing political parties under the Right to Information Act, 20051 is a right step in a vibrant democracy such as India. Accepting public money is one of the criteria in bringing the political parties under the RTI's ambit. Many political parties have opposed the move. But it is a welcome step in the direction of betterment of the society. It is a landmark decision by the CIC which has been working for nearly a decade.
Would it bring transparency on how the political parties are funded? Could it be one of the most transformative experiences for our polity after more than sixty years of parliamentary democracy? Would it bring accountability as has been intended. As the CIC mentioned, these judicial pronouncements unmistakably demand a progressively higher level of transparency in the functioning of political parties in general and their funding in particular. The answer is clear and loud: the CIC judgement can deliver while bringing the political parties under the purview of the RTI for a desired reform. Political parties in India are RTI-able. They cannot be kept outside the purview of the RTI Act.
The preliminary paragraph of the Act clearly states that “...in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority, the constitution of a Central Information Commission and State Information Commissions...” To have transparency, instil inner-party democracy and ensure transparent accounting of income and expenditure—these can be attributed as the aims of the CIC's judgement.2 Now, the six parties—the Indian National Congress (INC), the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPI-M), the Communist Party of India (CPI), the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) and the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP)—to whom RTI queries were directed, fulfil the criteria of being public authorities under the RTI Act.
During the hearing, the three principal points justifying the argument that parties come under the RTI Act were—indirect substantial financing by the Central Government, performance of public duty, and constitutional and legal provisions vesting them with rights and liabilities. The Bench categorically made it clear that the political parties are “... public authorities under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act”.3 In a democracy, the people must know the source of expenditure incurred by the political parties during elections. This judgement rules that the political parties are to share details like who funds them, how they spend the money and even how they select candidates for elections, if sought. The judgement is relevant because of the fact that it seeks to make transparent all expenditure of public money and other details about public authorities that impact citizens.
♦
If one looks around, most parties get a bulk of their contributions in multiple tranches of less than Rs 20,000.4 The CIC has held that political parties are “public authorities”, have a “public character” and are “substantially funded by the government”. Parties like the BSP have already stated that they get most of their funding through such small contributions.
The Bench said that income tax exemptions granted to the parties and free air time on All India Radio and Doordarshan at the time of elections also amount to indirect financing from the government. And political parties “affect the lives of the citizens, directly or indirectly, in every conceivable way and are continuously engaged in performing public duty. It is, therefore, important that they become accountable to the public.” Political parties should now reveal the details of voluntary financial contributions received. The six political parties should do so and they must submit the names and addresses of the donors.
There is no doubt that political parties being a key player in the business of government formation in the country and receiving different types of benefits and tax concession(s) from the government, certainly ought to be regarded as public authorities, and hence should be brought under the RTI.
Endnotes
1. The Right to Information Act, 2005 was an Act of Parliament. It received the assent of the President on June 15, 2005. For more details, see the Act in the Central Information Commission website http://cic.gov.in/ accessed on June 10, 2013.
2. A full Bench of the Commission, comprising Chief Information Commissioner Satyananda Mishra, and Information Commissioners, M.L. Sharma and Anna-purna Dixit, ruled that six parties—the Congress, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPI-M), the Communist Party of India (CPI), the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) and the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP)—to whom RTI queries were directed, fulfil the criteria of being public authorities under the RTI Act.
“The Presidents and General Secretaries of these parties are hereby directed to designate CPIOs (Central Public Information Officers) and appellate authorities at their headquarters in six weeks. The CPIOs so appointed will respond to the RTI applications extracted in this order in four weeks time,” the Bench said. It also directed the political parties to comply with the provisions of mandatory proactive disclosures clauses given under the RTI Act and put those details on their websites. On June 3, 2013, the CIC delivered its judgement in its response to the RTI queries from activist Subhash Agrawal and Anil Bairwal of the Association of Democratic Reforms, who had sought to know the finances of and voluntary financial contributions received by these six parties and the names and addresses of the donors, besides other details which the parties refused to make public saying they were not coming under the RTI Act.
3. This Section of the RTI Act states that- (h) “public authority” means any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted— (a) by or under the Constitution; (b) by any other law made by Parliament; (c) by any other law made by State Legislature; (d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate government, and includes any— (i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed; (ii) non-government organisation substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government
4. The CIC has explained further in its order that ... “It holds that ‘large tracts of land in prime areas of Delhi have been placed at the disposal of the political parties in question at exceptionally low rates. Besides, huge government accommodations have been placed at the disposal of political parties at hugely cheap rates thereby bestowing financial benefits on them.'” The author holds a Ph.D from Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. Presently, he teaches Political Science and International Relations at St. Joseph's College (Autonomous), Bangalore. He can be reached at jayanpa@gmail.com