The
Hindu: New Delhi: Wednesday, 18 March 2015.
Accepting
that political parties were in violation of its order, the Central Information
Commission however said it was unable to impose any action against them, a move
that the petitioners called “an abdication of its responsibilities.” Faced with
the only such case of non-compliance in the RTI’s history, the CIC, in an order
posted on Monday night, said that further action could be taken by the Union
government or by courts.
A full bench
of the CIC heard two petitions filed by Right To Information activist Subhash
Agarwal and the Association for Democratic Reforms about the non-compliance of
six national political parties the Bharatiya Janata Party, Indian National
Congress, Nationalist Congress Party, Bahujan Samaj Party, Communist Party of India
and Communist Party of India (Marxist) with the RTI on January 7 this year.
Eighteen
months had passed since the CIC in June 2013 deemed national political parties
to be ‘public authorities’ under the Act, to whom the provisions of the Act
would now apply. Yet, despite not having challenged the CIC’s order before the
Commission itself or before a court or even in Parliament, all six parties had
refused to comply with the Act, not replied to the CIC’s notices and never
appeared before it.
In its order
posted on Monday night, over two months after reserving the order, the CIC
concluded that its June 2013 order stands: “the Commission’s order of
03.06.2013 was not challenged in any court. As per the Commission’s order,
which is final and binding, the respondent national political parties are
public authorities under the RTI Act.”
However, it
expressed helplessness at enforcing compliance by the six national political
parties which have flouted its order, using the current provisions of the RTI
Act: “It is clear that the respondents have not implemented, as public
authorities, the directions contained in the Commission’s order. In this light,
the provisions for penalty and compensation were examined. It is felt that
though the respondents have not taken any step towards compliance, the legal
position is such that in this case imposition of penalty and award of
compensation cannot be considered.”
The petitioners
had sought penalties including a cessation of public subsidies like land at
concessional prices and compensation, but the CIC’s order finds that the
current provisions of the RTI Act do not allow for such penalty and
compensation to be awarded. “The Commission is not geared to handling
situations such as the present instance where the respondents have disengaged
from the process. The Commission, having declared the respondents to be public
authorities, is unable to get them to function so. This unusual case of wilful
non-compliance highlights the need to identify the legal gaps and lacunae in
the implementation mechanism. An obvious conclusion is that in cases such as
this, the Commission is bereft of the tools to get its orders complied with,”
the order states.
Stating that
there are gaps in the law that need to be addressed, the CIC has asked for a
copy of its order to be sent to the Department of Personnel and Training “for taking
action as deemed appropriate for addressing the legal gaps and issues that have
come to light during the hearings.”
It has also
said that the petitioners are free to approach courts. “The CIC is not a court,
but a quasi-judicial body. It is expected to follow not the letter of the law,
but the spirit of the law. Following this, the Act clearly gives it the power
to award penalty and compensation,” Jagdeep Chhokar, co-founder of ADR, told
The Hindu. “I am sorry to say that it is abdicating its responsbility,” Mr.
Chhokar added.
.JPG)
.JPG)
