Daily Pioneer: New Delhi: Wednesday,
May 25, 2016.
The CIC has
passed certain rulings on political parties to comply with its orders under the
RTI Act. Nothing has happened. Who is to ensure compliance?
During June
2013, when a three member Bench of the Central Information Commission,
pronounced that the six national political parties of India have been
substantially financed by the Union Government under section 2(h)(ii) of the
RTI Act, a nationwide debate evoked as to whether the decision of the CIC would
pass the legal scrutiny. A large section of the society, however, was
enthusiastic about the implications of the above judgement of the CIC and
argued that political leaders should surely be brought under the ambit of the
RTI Act.
It was
expected that the decision of the CIC would be challenged before the court of
the law, sooner or later, by the political parties. It did not however happen.
Most of the civil society activists argued that the timing of the judgement
would not probably encourage the political parties to challenge the verdict as
it close to an election year. At the same time however, political parties did
not comply with the directions of the CIC. In terms of the provisions of the
Act, a decision of the CIC is binding on the parties.
During one of
the complaints hearing before the CIC, one of the political parties submitted
before the CIC that nothing in the RTI Act suggested that a political party was
a “public authority”; that the CIC had expanded its own jurisdiction beyond the
letter and spirit of the RTI Act, which is illegal; that the order was in
excess of the powers of the CIC contemplated under Section 18 of the RTI Act;
that, if the CIC so chooses, it may find out the status of the Right to
Information (Amendment) Bill, 2013. Finally, it was requested that the
proceedings may either be closed or adjourned sine die till the final outcome
of the proceedings before Parliament.
One set of
argument in this regard could be that the status of the Right to Information
(Amendment) Bill, 2013, has elapsed with the dissolution of the Lok Sabha in
2014, and the Government of the day has not revived the said Bill in the newly
constituted Lok Sabha.
In such a
situation, that question which often arises is the following: Is it the
responsibility of the CIC to ensure the orders are complied with? The CIC, in
its order dated March 2015, summarised the findings of various High Courts,
whose central theme was that the commission was expected to get its orders
complied with. The Right to Information Act, 2005, is a self-contained
enactment and it provides for stringent measures for enforcement of the orders
of the authorities…for providing information. It confers powers on the
commission on the basis of which it can enforce its order…It is the cardinal principle
of interpretation of statute, well-settled by decisions of the apex court, that
courts or tribunals must be held to possess power to execute their own rulings.
In the same
order, the CIC concluded that the respondents' political parties have neither
complied with the orders of the commission nor have evidenced to compliance in
due course. The commission had passed the orders and is not geared up to ensure
compliance of such an order. Therefore, the CIC sent the order of March 2015,
to the appropriate Government for taking measures needed. The commission
thereafter closed the case. A year after that, the matter has been raked up
once again. The complainants have approached the commission yet again for
ensuring compliance.
The
criticality of the role being played by these political parties in our
democratic set-up and the nature of duties performed by them also point towards
their public character. It is expected that good sense prevails and that the
issues raised by this case are soon set to rest.
.JPG)
.JPG)
