Can RTI Act break the ‘exclusivity’ of clubs?

The Hindu: Bengaluru: Friday, 08 January 2016.

Can the Right to Information Act break the “exclusivity” of clubs?

The Legislature Committee formed to look into clubs certainly think so. The panel is mulling on a proposal which is expected to receive resistance from club managements to bring elite clubs under the RTI Act.

Elaborating on the “strong reasons” for such a move, a panel member said it was necessary to check whether the clubs were following the norms pertaining to audit and maintenance of accounts. It was also important to monitor payments of taxes by clubs, considering memberships come at a heavy price. He further added that the proposal would give transparency in monitoring violations of excise rules by clubs something that had grabbed the headlines recently.

All clubs in Karnataka have to register under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960, and submit audit reports to the government every year after holding annual general body meetings. However, the panel believes that a majority of the clubs have not registered under the Act and are functioning in contravention to the rules.

An official, who along with panel members visited clubs, said several of them, in spite of enjoying various facilities or concessions and even grants of lands from the State, have not followed rules and are “extremely exclusive” in nature.

However, General Secretary of the Federation of clubs, H.S. Shrikanth, believes that as social clubs do not depend on government funds, the RTI Sct cannot be applied. “It is an exaggeration to say that a majority of clubs are not registered under the Societies Act. Barring two clubs – who have registered under the Companies Act a majority of the clubs are societies. Under the Act, annual reports and accounts are submitted to the Registrar of societies, where the information is public. For other internal matters, there is scrutiny from members,” he said. He added that clubs functioning on government land have complied to the stipulations of the lease, and additional governmental oversight was unnecessary.