The Hindu: Kerala: Thursday,
March 27, 2014.
Is the
Communist Party of India (Marxist) [CPI(M)] bound to disclose its inquiry
report into the Revolutionary Marxist Party leader T.P. Chandrasekharan murder
case?
With the Lok
Sabha poll date nearing, the United Democratic Front (UDF) is snapping at the
party’s heels, challenging the CPI(M) to be transparent about the report.
“In the time
of Right to Information Act, when information is flowing in from all quarters,
the CPI(M), as a responsible political party, should publish the details and
findings of their report into this political murder,” Home Minister Ramesh Chennithala
told The Hindu on Tuesday during a visit here.
Public
status
But the
‘public’ status of a political party has raised conflicting stands within the
legal and legislative framework. In fact, the debate hinges on the larger
question whether a political party is a ‘public authority’ or not under Section
2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The RTI seems to be the only avenue
to access the report, unless the CPI(M) volunteers to make it public.
On one side,
a Central Information Commission (CIC) decision of June 3, 2013 had declared
that political parties enjoy statutory status under Section 29A of the
Representation of the People (RP) Act, 1951, and hence were ‘public
authorities’.
CIC
reasoning
The CIC had
based its order on the reasoning that “political parties affect the lives of
citizens, directly or indirectly, in every conceivable way and are continuously
engaged in performing public duty. It is, therefore, important that they became
accountable to the public”.
The
Commission reasoned that political parties wield constitutional status under
the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution as they have the power to disqualify
legislators from the Parliament and State Assemblies, bind legislators in their
speeches and voting inside the house, decide what laws are made, decide whether
government remains in power or which government should come to power and,
lastly, decide public policies that affect lives of millions of people.
The Union
Cabinet went on to counter the CIC by tabling the RTI (Amendment) Bill, 2013 on
August 12, 2013. The pending Bill intends to amend the 2005 Act to exclude the
political parties from the definition of ‘public authority’.
It explains
that “political parties do not fall within the parameters of the definition of
public authority given in the RTI Act, as they are only registered and
recognised under the RP Act, 1951”.
If passed,
the Bill would apply retrospectively, that is, with effect from June 3, 2013 –
the date of CIC decision.
A
Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and
Justice has also countered the CIC in a report in December 2013. It said
political parties are not public authorities as they have not been created
directly under the Indian Constitution.
Parliamentary
report
The
parliamentary report had further criticised the CIC, saying it gave too liberal
an interpretation of the usage ‘public authority’ and made political parties
open to motivated and malicious RTI applications from rival parties.
RTI activists
and legal experts differ on whether the CPI(M) is bound to disclose the inquiry
report on RTI request.
“As of now,
the CIC decision bringing political parties under RTI ambit stands. There has
been no amendment to the 2005 Act nor have any of the six political parties,
including the CPI(M), challenged the CIC decision with a writ application in
the Delhi High Court. I am personally going to file a complaint with the CIC
against the non-implementation of the June 3 order by political parties,”
D.B. Binu,
noted RTI activist, said. “The decision of a quasi-judicial body like the CIC
can only be practically considered as an opinion. Ideally, the question whether
political parties are public authorities or not should be left to the
Legislature to decide,” Kaleeswaram Raj, senior advocate at the Kerala High
Court, said.