Governance Now: New Delhi:
Saturday, September 28, 2013.
A former
central information commissioner Shailesh Gandhi writes on making political
parties answerable through the RTI act
We
reproduce here a letter Shailesh Gandhi, former central information
commissioner, has written to the chairman of parliament standing committee in
the matter of the proposed amendments to the RTI act.
27/09/2013
Shri
Shantaram Naik,
Chairman, Parliamentary Standing Committee
Sub.: RTI
amendment Bill
Dear Sir,
The
undersigned would like to give his submissions in the matter of the proposed
amendment to the RTI Act. I am taking up the reasons mentioned in the Statement
of Objects and Reasons which have been provided in the Bill first:
1.
Para
2 indicates that the decision of the CIC is not in consonance with the law.
This reason has also been mentioned in public statements by many political
leaders. There can be a legitimate difference of opinion in interpreting the provisions
of an Act. In that event, the proper course of action would be to challenge it
in a writ. Many decisions of the CIC
have been challenged and some have been quashed. An amendment would be required
only if the Government believes that the CIC decision is unassailable under the
law.
2.
Para
3 states that there are enough regulatory provisions in the Representation of
People’s Act and the Income tax Act requiring adequate disclosures to the
Election Commission and the Income Tax authorities. It is an open secret that
over 90% of the elected representatives spend 10 to 40 times the amounts they
mention in their statements to the election commission. There is no evidence
that the income tax department verifies the details given in the affidavits
with the income tax returns of the candidates and it is generally believed that
the affidavits are at variance with the income tax returns. If our regulatory
mechanisms were working reasonably satisfactorily, corruption would have been
at much lower levels. It must be clarified here that RTI will only give access
to citizens of what is on records, and most of the black money may not get
exposed. But continuous public gaze and scrutiny by thousands of individual
citizens will help to bring down the arbitrariness and corruption in political
parties. It is also likely to result in a gradual reduction in black money in
Politics and the country. Sunlight and truth are the best remedies to dispel
darkness. The regulators have hardly taken any serious action against the political
parties so far, and vigilant citizens
are likely to aid them.
3.
Para
4 says if RTI is applied to the political parties, their functioning will be
seriously affected, since they do not have the capability of providing
information to the RTI queries and this will damage democracy. Political rivals
may misuse the RTI provisions. Small
NGOs, and aided schools with budgets of less than 1 million rupees have been
able to cope with RTI without being overwhelmed. For any party which contests
just 10 to 20 seats in a state assembly election, the actual budget is over 100
million rupees. To claim that even a small regional party will find it
difficult to cope with RTI queries does not appear to be a credible argument.
As to the contention that rival parties will be able misuse RTI provisions, we
can only state that no such ‘misuse’ has been reported in the last eight years
in any organization which could seriously harm any public authority. Some
inconvenience and embarrassment may occur but these would make them
better.
Also
read: Pranab-da, look before you sign this ordinance
Some of
the other issues raised by some of the political leaders are:
a)
They
will be questioned on why they chose a particular candidate for elections. RTI
requires only the records to be provided. It does not require queries to be
answered beyond the records.
b)
Political
parties do not want to be answerable to the Information Commissions. Firstly,
the answerability in RTI is to citizens of India, and that too only in terms of
providing information on records. This Act has certain exemptions in Section 8
to ensure that no major harm can come to any public authority by disclosure of
information. In the last eight years during which RTI has been implemented,
there has been no instance of any organization having been put to great harm or
being rendered dysfunctional. Certain arbitrary or corrupt actions may be
uncovered and these should be corrected. If political parties say they do not
wish to be accountable to citizens, this would be unacceptable.
Political
parties must realize that changing a law because they find it inconvenient is
setting a very bad example for the health of the rule of law. Those who do not
have a stake in the rule of law, may choose to defy it if they do not find it
convenient. This is not an option which lawmakers can take, without damaging
their credibility and of Parliament.
Apart from
looking at the objections, citizens feel this is a great opportunity to make
our democracy more meaningful. When RTI was first introduced police and army
had said they needed to be exempted from RTI, failing which they would not be
able to perform their duties. No harm has befallen these two entities, and the
exemptions have adequately safeguarded these and all other Institutions. In the
last few decades citizens have developed a lack of respect for politicians and
their parties, which is not healthy for a democracy and for India. The trust
deficit which exists needs to be reduced. If Indian democracy has to deliver
its services and fruits to citizens, there is great need for trust to be
developed between citizens and the political parties.
Unless a
meaningful and constant interaction takes place, the nation will not be able to
progress in a fair, equitable and meaningful way. If the political parties
think about the future of their parties after a decade and dream of better
parties serving the nation which should take its rightful position in the
world, they will realize that transparency and accountability towards all citizens
will be beneficial for everyone.
The fear
being displayed by political parties is understandable. Most people and
organisations feel that transparency is good for others, and they do not need
to be transparent. Once they get over the initial resistance and develop a
culture of transparency, they become better in the process and get the benefits
which flow from transparency and truth.
It would be a historical blunder to miss this opportunity.
I request a
meeting with the Standing Committee to present my views and discuss them.
Yours truly
Shailesh
Gandhi
Former
Central Information Commissioner
B2, Gokul
Apartment, Podar Road, Santacruz (W),
Mumbai 400054; Tel: 022 26001003; 8976240798
.JPG)
.JPG)
