The Hindu: New Delhi: Saturday, June
08, 2013.
 |
| CPI(M) general secretary Prakash Karat. |
The Communist
Party of India (Marxist) has described as “misconceived and wrong” the Central
Information Commission’s (CIC) order that political parties come within the
ambit of the Right To Information Act. It said the order stemmed from a “lack
of understanding and a basic misconception” about the role of political parties
in a parliamentary democracy.
CPI(M)
general secretary Prakash Karat said it was necessary for the government to
discuss the issue with all parties and get the necessary clarification
incorporated in the RTI Act itself by Parliament. “The CIC has exceeded its
brief under the RTI Act by setting out a new definition of political parties.
When Parliament adopted the Right to Information Act in 2005, which was
supported by the CPI(M) too, the intention was not to bring political parties
as ‘public authorities’ under its purview,’’ he wrote in the latest edition of
the party organ, People’s Democracy.
Political
parties, he said, were not governmental organisations or state-funded entities.
There was no constitutional provision for a political party. “A political party
is an association of citizens who come together voluntarily to form a party on
the basis of an ideology, programme and leadership.”
The CIC order
would enable anyone to ask for internal deliberations of a party which “will
harm the very mode of inner-party functioning. Within a party, discussions are
held on the basis of confidentiality that certain decisions are taken.”
“To demand
that such deliberations be made available will be a serious infringement on the
nature of inner-party discussions and the way decisions are taken by a
political party,” Mr. Karat said adding that the new law could be used as “an
instrument” by one party against another as the former could demand information
on internal matters of the latter.
On the RTI
demands on selection of candidates which could be made under the new CIC
ruling, he said, “How a party selects its candidates is its own business. How
is it a concern of others? In a democracy, people are free to judge and decide
which candidate to vote for or not.’’
“In a
democratic system, a political party has the right to decide whom to put up as
a candidate according to whatever criteria it wishes to adopt which are within
the legal framework.”
Under the
existing laws, a person convicted of a serious crime could not be put up as a
candidate as he or she would be disqualified. “If there is any need for a
change in the law, it can be discussed. But the intrinsic right of a political
party to put up candidates on the basis of its own criteria cannot be
questioned or subjected to any public scrutiny.”
Transparency
;
On
transparency and accountability, the article said there was genuine concern
over how political parties raised money and funded their activities. There
should indeed be transparency and accountability in the funding and finances of
political parties. Under the present law, every recognised political party had
to submit its annual statement of accounts and finances to the Income Tax
Department and to the Election Commission. The Election Commission had been
providing information about political parties’ audited accounts and finances to
anyone who applied for it under the RTI Act.
“A political
party cannot be treated as an NGO, which is getting substantial state funding.
Political parties play a vital role in the parliamentary democratic system.
That role should not be hampered or infringed upon by dubbing these parties as
public authorities.”
.JPG)
.JPG)
