DNA: New Delhi: Sunday, August 04, 2013.
Political parties led by the UPA government are putting
up a stiff resistance to the idea that they should come under the ambit of
Right To Information (RTI). The politicians have realised that it is not about
the donations made to the party, or the declaration of the financial
transactions to the Election Commission as well as the Income Tax. They know
that the RTI queries would be about internal processes and inner deliberations,
and the reasons behind decisions, selection of candidates and office-bearers.
Political parties say they have a right to privacy and it will not be possible
to reveal all, and that outsiders cannot demand to know the inner workings of
the parties.
Union minister for law and justice Kapil Sibal said, “If outsiders want to know what Mr finance minister Chidambaram said, or information and broadcasting minister Manish Tewari said or I said then we will not be able to say candidly what we would like to say.”
The desperation in Sibal’s tone became obvious when he said, “It will strike at the root of democracy. Nowhere in the world does it happen.” Sibal used all his lawyerly skills to argue that “political parties are not public authorities” as held by the Chief Information Commission (CIC) but voluntary organisations. “There is an impression that political parties are not accountable. I want to disabuse the public of this idea. Political parties are not corporations, they are not trusts. A political party is a voluntary organisation. There is a difference between an authority and a political party. We get elected. We do not get appointed,” he said.
BJP spokesperson and Supreme Court lawyer Meenakshi Lekhi said, “Political parties too need privacy. We do announce decisions taken but we cannot reveal the reasons for choosing or not choosing a person for a particular post.”
Disagreeing, retired Delhi high court justice RS Sodhi told dna, “Political parties may not be in power always, but their activities and decisions are related to governmental functions, so they can not be excused from giving the information under the RTI.”
Countering the government’s argument that political parties are not corporations or trust, Sodhi said, “All the benefits like having a office or tax exemption or any other work related to parties’ functions are through government only. Basically all parties are being benefited by the government in one or the other way so they have to be accountable to the public at large who elect them.”
Retired Delhi high court justice SN Dhingra said, “Political parties saying they can not have open discussions amongst the party as it would have to be disclosed under the RTI is completely wrong under the law as all the decisions taken by them are for the people, so hiding the procedure of taking such decisions is not a valid ground for asking exemption.”
“Inconvenience is no ground for maintaining the secrecy. If it is in public interest disclosures should be made by the political parties,” Dhingra added.
Shekhar Singh of the National Campaign for People’s Right to Information (NCPRI) demolished government arguments in favour of amending the RTI Act. NCPRI, which also includes former member of National Advisory Council Aruna Roy, had spearheaded the movement for passage of a strong RTI Act in 2005.
“Parliament while passing RTI Act had left ‘substantial funding’ undefined for a reason – so that it can be looked by information commissions or high courts on case to case basis. In this case too, the right thing for political parties should have been to move high court for it to decide. But the decision to amend the RTI Act because you don’t like what it has resulted in is the height of political arrogance,” Singh told dna.
“Secondly, the spirit of the RTI Act is that people of India must have the right to monitor where their money goes. Apart from what government gives to political parties, 95% of their funds come from individuals and donations. So there has to be a mechanism where these people can check how that donated money is being spent,” he added.
He also argued that it is not just about donations. “If a company misleads public it can be fined or its officials can face jail. Similarly, if a political party makes promise in a manifesto then people have right to ask whether they have lived up to them or not. Right now there is no such provision. Work of company may or may not affect me but action of political parties certainly does,” Shekhar Singh said.
Meanwhile, Anil Bairwal of Association for Democratic Reforms that won case against political parties bringing them under RTI Act, said government’s action is completely undemocratic. “Their argument that they give data to election commission is not solid as a lot of other organisations and institutions which give data to other bigger authorities also come under RTI. Also if an organisation works purely in public interest, we have a Supreme Court judgment which says that if you are working for public interest, you do come under RTI Act,” Bairwal told dna.
“Every department of government comes under RTI, then how can those who form the government would not come under RTI. These three reasons are enough to bring political parties under RTI. Government by moving cabinet has taken an undemocratic step. They should have approached court and let it decide the matter,” Bairwal said
Union minister for law and justice Kapil Sibal said, “If outsiders want to know what Mr finance minister Chidambaram said, or information and broadcasting minister Manish Tewari said or I said then we will not be able to say candidly what we would like to say.”
The desperation in Sibal’s tone became obvious when he said, “It will strike at the root of democracy. Nowhere in the world does it happen.” Sibal used all his lawyerly skills to argue that “political parties are not public authorities” as held by the Chief Information Commission (CIC) but voluntary organisations. “There is an impression that political parties are not accountable. I want to disabuse the public of this idea. Political parties are not corporations, they are not trusts. A political party is a voluntary organisation. There is a difference between an authority and a political party. We get elected. We do not get appointed,” he said.
BJP spokesperson and Supreme Court lawyer Meenakshi Lekhi said, “Political parties too need privacy. We do announce decisions taken but we cannot reveal the reasons for choosing or not choosing a person for a particular post.”
Disagreeing, retired Delhi high court justice RS Sodhi told dna, “Political parties may not be in power always, but their activities and decisions are related to governmental functions, so they can not be excused from giving the information under the RTI.”
Countering the government’s argument that political parties are not corporations or trust, Sodhi said, “All the benefits like having a office or tax exemption or any other work related to parties’ functions are through government only. Basically all parties are being benefited by the government in one or the other way so they have to be accountable to the public at large who elect them.”
Retired Delhi high court justice SN Dhingra said, “Political parties saying they can not have open discussions amongst the party as it would have to be disclosed under the RTI is completely wrong under the law as all the decisions taken by them are for the people, so hiding the procedure of taking such decisions is not a valid ground for asking exemption.”
“Inconvenience is no ground for maintaining the secrecy. If it is in public interest disclosures should be made by the political parties,” Dhingra added.
Shekhar Singh of the National Campaign for People’s Right to Information (NCPRI) demolished government arguments in favour of amending the RTI Act. NCPRI, which also includes former member of National Advisory Council Aruna Roy, had spearheaded the movement for passage of a strong RTI Act in 2005.
“Parliament while passing RTI Act had left ‘substantial funding’ undefined for a reason – so that it can be looked by information commissions or high courts on case to case basis. In this case too, the right thing for political parties should have been to move high court for it to decide. But the decision to amend the RTI Act because you don’t like what it has resulted in is the height of political arrogance,” Singh told dna.
“Secondly, the spirit of the RTI Act is that people of India must have the right to monitor where their money goes. Apart from what government gives to political parties, 95% of their funds come from individuals and donations. So there has to be a mechanism where these people can check how that donated money is being spent,” he added.
He also argued that it is not just about donations. “If a company misleads public it can be fined or its officials can face jail. Similarly, if a political party makes promise in a manifesto then people have right to ask whether they have lived up to them or not. Right now there is no such provision. Work of company may or may not affect me but action of political parties certainly does,” Shekhar Singh said.
Meanwhile, Anil Bairwal of Association for Democratic Reforms that won case against political parties bringing them under RTI Act, said government’s action is completely undemocratic. “Their argument that they give data to election commission is not solid as a lot of other organisations and institutions which give data to other bigger authorities also come under RTI. Also if an organisation works purely in public interest, we have a Supreme Court judgment which says that if you are working for public interest, you do come under RTI Act,” Bairwal told dna.
“Every department of government comes under RTI, then how can those who form the government would not come under RTI. These three reasons are enough to bring political parties under RTI. Government by moving cabinet has taken an undemocratic step. They should have approached court and let it decide the matter,” Bairwal said
.JPG)
.JPG)
