The Week: Sachidananda
Murthy: Tuesday, June 11, 2013.
Lok Sabha
Speaker Meira Kumar must have been amused by the rare show of unanimity among
political parties refusing to comply with the Right to Information Act. She has
been trying in vain for many months to bring unity among the major players in
the Lok Sabha to ensure that Parliament runs smoothly. But the unanimity of the
political class against the intrusion into their style of functioning was
expected. After all, judges are reluctant to allow RTI access to the way the
Supreme Court and High Courts function. Many governmental agencies like the
armed forces, paramilitary, CBI and Enforcement Directorate do not want to come
in the sights of RTI activists.
Some time
ago, Defence Minister A.K. Antony had spoken about how a transparency
revolution was sweeping the country and everyone had to face the new reality.
Recently, retired CAG Vinod Rai said the bureaucracy had failed to adapt to the
tsunami that was RTI. He said the government, from the Prime Minister downward,
was asking questions about the activist CAG, but the rules of the governance
game were changed when information became a right during UPA I.
Yet there are
concerns about whether the Central Information Commission has gone too far in
declaring the six national parties as “public authorities”. The commission has
relied on the fact that political donations are exempt from income tax and also
the parties get land and other benefits from the government.
Parties now
give details of corporate donations to the Election Commission, but do not
disclose details of how they spend their money, especially on travel and other
allowances of their senior leaders.
Interestingly,
there have been many cases in the Supreme Court on whether an organisation can
be described as part of the “state”. The court has held that the term “state”,
which means accountability to Parliament and state Assemblies, is applicable to
only institutions which are owned or controlled in some manner by the
government. There can be writ petitions against institutions deemed as part of the
"state" to enforce rights and obligations by any citizen or group of
citizens. In fact, the income tax and other tax departments have been trying to
apply these definitions to some institutions, but the courts have been strict.
However, the
Central Information Commission has gone beyond the legal interpretation.
Therefore, the office bearers, members and employees of political parties may
be deemed to be public servants and can come under the jurisdiction of
investigative agencies.
.JPG)
.JPG)
