Except for BJP, rest of the mainstream political parties in the country have opposed the recent ruling of the Central Information Commission that all political parties be brought under the ambit of the RTI Act. CIC was delivering the judgment on a private petition. Right to Information Act is what the UPA Government has been boasting about as its big achievement. But now the same party has come out in strong criticism of the judgment. Although six mainstream parties have raised objection to the judgment, BJP finds no harm in it. According to this order all political parties will have to provide information under the RTI Act pertaining to political donations and other political activities. It also envisages information on the question whether political donations are utilized properly or not.
The Congress has called it an act of adventurism fraught with serious consequences to democratic institutions. CPI (M) and BJP’s ally JD (U) think that the order will immensely harm the political system in the country, which is based on the freedom of political parties in shaping their policies and decisions.
From the tone and tenor of mainstream political parties that are rejecting the CIC judgment, it appears that a fierce nationwide debate will ensue on the issue. Much can be said on either side and that will make the debate more interesting. The basis of the judgment is that according to CIC, Congress, BJP, NCP, CPI-M, CPI and BSP — have been substantially funded indirectly by the central government and they have the character of public authority under the RTI Act as they perform public function. Therefore as public authority, they are obliged to provide information about the funding and spending etc. if and when asked to do so. The CIC has taken the cue from the clauses of the Act and has interpreted them according to the nature of the case it was dealing with. May be the focus of any future debate in this regard will be on the precise interpretation or definition of public authority. Nevertheless according to the CIC, the interpretation encompasses political parties.
However there is another side of the picture as well. There are equally strong arguments with political parties. For example, the Congress spokesman says that only a small fraction of funds comes from the Central Government while bulk of funding is from individuals and corporate chapter. Likewise, the CPI (M) has contended that it does not receive any funding from the Government and it does not accept funding from the big business houses. Why then should it be brought under the RTI scanner? There is another line of argument, which political parties think should have been taken into account. Each party is required to fill in the annual income tax return and they do it without fail. This is what transparency means to them. The Government can call in the substance of these returns at any time for perusal and as such there remains no need to subject the parties to RTI Act.
In all probability, any debate on this issue will concentrate on transparency in receiving the funds as well as in dispersing them. CPI (M) for example believes that the transparency element has been the catalyst to the verdict of the CIC. It is true that the annual income tax return does bring into focus the details of funding but by and large an income tax remains a confidential document not easily circulated in the public domain. In comparison, extension of RTI to this chapter of public authority brings in real transparency. Again there is weight in the argument that political parties are public authority because they function in the interests of the public.
It has to be reminded that though political parties do fall in the category of public authority, but not only the parties even the entire political voting system is controlled by the Election Commission of India. This State organization has set forth comprehensive rules and regulations that are required to be observed by all political parties in letter and in spirit. The EC has the jurisdiction of making enquiry into any aspect of a political party when it becomes part of election process. With the presence of EC and its rules, there remains little to do for the RTI to probe into the functioning of political parities. On this basis one would say that application of RTI to political parties is somewhat farfetched idea.
Nevertheless, the fact remains that political parties have come into question at a number of times especially in the cases of horse-trading. Buying of members of parliament or legislature has been a common practice. Despite banning cross flooring in the parliament or state legislature, we have had a number of examples where politicians have been changing their stance. If the idea is to stonewall horse trading and buying of members of legislature, then the idea of expanding of RTI to political parties does carry strong sense. It will be seen that shifting politicians have been the bane of our democratic dispensation. Sometimes this causes strain on the political structure of the country. At other times, it makes people upset on account of a pal of secrecy cast over the funding in political parties. Some political parties are rumoured to be passing crores of rupees at the time of elections. This disrupts the entire political jurisprudence in the country.
Some leaders believe that political parties have to debate sensitive issues within their circles for a clearer picture of events under discussion. These inner deliberations are so sensitive as cannot be discussed in public. The Right to Information would expose policy planners of respective parties and make the parties vulnerable to outside interference and assault which is detrimental to healthy political atmosphere in the country.
In final analysis, we reiterate that this has become a controversial issue. One way out is that the matter is brought to the notice of the Supreme Court for adjudication. In all probability, that is going to happen. The question is that in case the Supreme Court also upholds the verdict of the CIC, what course is left to protesting political parties. We would suggest that an all -party meet is organized and a cool-headed debate on the issue is initiated. We have many stalwarts of law and constitutional provisions in the country. We believe that they should be able to find a solution to this embarrassing situation.
Follow our WhatsApp channel