Deccan Herald: New Delhi:
Sunday, June 09, 2013.
The Central
Information Commission’s ruling bringing political parties under the ambit of
the RTI Act has stirred up a hornet’s nest. Those hailing it claim that it
would set a new benchmark for transparency in governance. The critics, however,
feel that it has opened a pandora’s box.
If the
political parties are made to open up to the queries under the RTI Act, then,
they say, it would expose each and every organisation, including those from the
private sector and industries to the same regime. There would be no ground left
to keep them aside.
Interestingly,
the Freedom of Information Law of the US, Sweden and other European countries
does not cover political parties.
Out of 89
countries having transparency law governing political parties, India would now
be the third one after Poland and Nepal.
The apex
information panel under the transparency law held that since the parties are
allotted land and bungalows at cheaper and concessional rates, enjoy tax
benefits on donations, they could be described as public authorities falling
under the purview the RTI Act.
The free air
time given to them on AIR and Doordarshan for campaign at the time of elections
was said to have contributed to substantial financing of the political parties
by the central government.
The main
reliance of the CIC’s decision was Section 2 (h) (ii) of the RTI Act as it
concluded that the political parties were substantially financed by the
government. So, they need to be answerable to the queries under the RTI Act.
It goes
without saying that the other provisions like Section 2 (a), (b), (c) and (d)
could not be applied to political parties. But here also, the full bench of the
CIC disagreed.
It said: “If
not strictly within the letter of this particular provision (d), but at least,
in spirit, these political parties can be said to have been constituted by
their registration by the Election Commission of India, a fact akin to the
establishment or constitution of a body or institution by an appropriate
government.”
Advocate Amit
Anand Tiwari, who argued at length on behalf of the NCP before the CIC,
counters the reasoning by saying, “recognition” given to the political parties
by the EC cannot be called “creation under the statute”.
“Parliament,
the Supreme Court and the High Courts, various tribunals have been created
(established) by the Constitution. But, political parties are voluntary
organisations which merely get recognition from the EC,” he points out.
By CIC’s
logic, a corporate body created under the Companies Act would also come under
the RTI Act.
No doubt, the
purpose of RTI Act is to bring transparency and accountability in the
functioning of those entities which affect citizens’ lives.
But, if one
takes the argument of substantial financing or tax relief granted to political
parties as one of the reasons for dragging them under the RTI, then by the same
logic private industries should also be covered under it, as they too enjoy tax
exemption under various schemes such as special economic zones (SEZs).
The
industrial units also get so many other benefits. For example, they are
allocated plots at subsidised rates after having been established under the
provisions of a particular law.
The CIC,
however, unsuccessfully tried to demolish the logic by claiming that the
political parties enjoy “almost unfettered exemption” from payment of Income
Tax. In case of any other charitable or non-profit, non-government
organisation, the benefit is conditional, it averred.
The panel has
gone to the ludicrous extent of pointing out that the political parties are given
free electoral rolls, which could also be construed as substantial financing.
Philosophy
of RTI;
The very
philosophy of the transparency law is to make the government accountable to the
people. But to extend it to all public and private institutions would render
the whole exercise unwieldy and also dilute the very purpose.
That’s why,
Finance Minister P Chidambaram described the CIC judgment as “unusual
interpretation of the RTI Act”. External Affairs Minister Salman Khurshid went
on to advocate “a practical control of RTI objectives because it cannot be
allowed to run riot”.
Other
political parties, including the CPI and CPM, also joined the campaign to slam
the decision of the CIC.
They say that
all of them are already answerable to the Election Commission of India and the
Income Tax authorities.
The BJP
raised a valid argument that it was practically not possible for a political
party to appoint Chief Public Information officer (CPIO) and Public Information
Officers (PIOs) in its offices to answer queries under the RTI Act.
Moreover, how
would one make a PIO or CPIO of a political party accountable? In case of a
government servant, the information panel can impose fine and even order
denying the officer promotion for willful disobedience or disregard to the
order to disclose information. But similar punitive action in the case of
political parties would not be feasible.
The ruling
Congress described the verdict as “adventurist approach set to harm the
democratic institutions”.
Advocate
Tiwari says that the information panel was swayed by the belief that making
political parties answerable under the RTI Act would clean up the prevailing
corruption.
“In fact, in
this case, the perception has played a bigger role than the letter of law,” he
says.
Confidentiality
the key;
Tiwari
apprehends that the decision would lead to chaos.With so many disgruntled
elements sulking within each political party, one can imagine a scenario of a
district-level worker filing RTI application for every decision taken or not
taken at the central level and then dragging his own party to the information
commission or to High Court and the Supreme Court.
It is high
time the CIC’s decision is reviewed judicially to help democracy remain
functional at the ground level or the transparency law would become another
tool in the hands of busybodies to slow down the establishment, said a
political analyst.
At the
moment, it is six national parties - Congress, BJP, NCP, CPM, CPI and BSP -
that have been directed to come under the RTI Act but regional political
outfits cannot remain untouched by the decision for too long.
More blunt is
the reaction of CPM General Secretary Prakash Karat, who called the decision
“misconceived and wrong”. He feels that it would harm inner-party functioning
since deliberations are held within the party on the basis of confidentiality.
.JPG)
.JPG)
