There was great public outrage when legislators in Mumbai beat up an assistant police inspector because he stopped an MLA’s car for speeding on the Bandra-Worli sealink. The sentiment was: What arrogance! How can lawmakers have so little respect for the laws they themselves made? However, the amendment in Parliament aimed at removing political parties from the purview of the RTI Act—after six political parties had been ordered by a statutory authority, the Central Information Commission (CIC), to appoint public information officers—makes the arrogance of the Maharashtra legislators seem insignificant. Now think what the MPs are telling the legislators in Maharashtra. If someone dares to stop you because you were speeding and breaking a law (that you yourself had enacted), it is not enough to just thrash them. You should immediately come back and amend the law, specifying that all legislators (and former legislators, and would-be legislators) are allowed to break the law, while all others must obey it.
The ‘intent’ of the RTI Act
The Indian RTI Act, in keeping with global best practices, intends to give the public access to at least four types of information—relating to the allocation and use of public resources; relating to any authority set up, owned or controlled by the government; pertaining to any statutory monitoring or regulatory obligations of the government; and, finally, information which is in the larger public interest to disclose, even where some harm might accrue, as long as the public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests.
Therefore, any organisation that holds in its possession any of these four types of information is ‘intended’ to be covered by the RTI Act. Clearly, political parties are a ‘twice-born’ in this category, for not only do they use public resources but they also hold much information that would be in great public interest if disclosed.
The CIC, in its order, has already listed the extensive benefits parties get from the public exchequer in the form of tax exemptions, subsidised land etc amounting to millions of rupees. Apart from that, every year they collect vast amounts of funds directly from the people on the understanding that they would fulfil the promises listed out in their manifestos and/or in other public pronouncements.
Clearly, millions of anonymous Indians give their hard-earned money to political parties mainly in the belief that these parties will live up to their promises of delivering a better life for them. Therefore, they have a right to know what the political parties, to whom they give their money (and their votes and hopes), are doing—what principles they are keeping in mind while taking policy decisions, supporting or opposing bills in Parliament, or while selecting candidates for various elections. Given the fact that in India most people vote for parties rather than individuals, can any information be more critical than all this for ensuring that our democracy really functions and that people elect the party that is closest to their aspirations?
The ‘Official’ Justification
The RTI Amendment Bill lists three substantive justifications for excluding political parties from the rti’s purview.
First, it is argued that “there are already provisions in the Representation of the People (RP) Act, 1951, as well as in the Income Tax Act, 1961, which deals with transparency in the financial aspects of political parties and their candidates”. It is correct that certain types of financial information is reported by political parties to the Election Commission (EC) and to the income-tax (I-T) department under the RP and I-T Acts, which theoretically citizens can access under Section 2(F) of the RTI Act. However, clearly these kind of pro-forma disclosures are inadequate.
In 2010-11, just the six national parties listed by the CIC had a combined declared income of Rs 700 crore. A significant proportion of this income was from donations by the public, and only 10 per cent of these donations were reported to be in amounts greater than Rs 20,000. The remaining 90 per cent were reportedly received in denominations smaller than Rs 20,000. Under the current I-T Act, parties do not have to declare the sources of donations under Rs 20,000 and therefore information on the sources of these donations cannot be obtained from the I-T department or the EC. These ‘anonymous’ donations could very well be large donations made by industrialists, corporates and rich individuals, which are ‘broken down’ and shown as multiple small donations.
Also, as far as the EC goes, only the declared expenses of each candidate at the time of elections are passed on to them. Yet everyone knows that these are, in most cases, only a small proportion of the actual expenses. Of relevance here is the recent reported statement of MP Gopinath Munde, who admitted spending 20 times more than the allowed limit on his elections. If he is a typical case, as is likely, the EC can only provide us with details of five per cent of the actual expenditure.
The second justification is that declaring “a political party as public authority under the RTI Act would hamper its smooth internal working”. But parties are essentially bureaucracies with hierarchies, functionaries, assets, duties and responsibilities. The requirement that they function transparently would automatically force the party functionaries to more closely adhere to the prescribed rules and processes, and to take decisions on a basis that is not only fair but also appears to be fair. If the world over transparency has been recognised as significantly improving the functioning of bureaucracies, then why does that not apply to political bureaucracies?
Besides, it is well recognised that transparency promotes democracy. Surely it will be a positive outcome if political parties, which are at the heart of our democracy, become more democratic in their own functioning.
Finally, the third justification for ethical delinquency—that “political rivals may misuse the provisions of the RTI Act, thereby adversely affecting the functioning of the political parties”—is the most mysterious. If rival parties file a large number of RTI applications, the receiving party can also reciprocate. The concern of parties that political rivals might use the RTI Act to access records that prove illegal dealings would be valid only if parties were maintaining records of their illegal dealings. If they indeed are maintaining such records, then the RTI Act is the least of their worries, for they might get away by denying the existence of such records if any RTI request came, especially as the RTI Act does not give powers of raids, searches and seizures. On the other hand, the I-T Act and the Indian Penal Code, among others, give such powers, and ‘political rivals’, rather than misusing the RTI Act, would much more likely use these other laws to expose them.
The quest continues
There is a clear and urgent need for greater transparency in the functioning of political parties. Recent months have witnessed a strong public demand to not amend the RTI Act and to hold wide consultations on any proposed amendments. At last count, over a hundred thousand signatures had been appended to just one of the many letters and petitions asking the prime minister to desist from amending the RTI Act. One poster read: ‘The RTI is mending our democracy, please do not amend it!’
On September 5, 2013, sensing the mood of the nation, in a welcome development, the political establishment referred the RTI Amendment Bill to a parliamentary standing committee. The standing committee could potentially provide a platform to balance the legitimate concerns of political parties, related to disclosing information that would harm their competitive and strategic interests, with the urgent need for transparency in the functioning of political parties.
In the meantime, in the absence of any court granting a stay order, the CIC ruling is in force. The six national political parties must immediately comply with the orders of the CIC and put in place mechanisms to provide information to citizens under the RTI Act.
(The authors are RTI activists.)
Apropos of the column by Anjali Bhardwaj et al (Let’s All Come to the Party, Sep 23), just one question. Sonia Gandhi is given all the credit for the RTI Act, 2005. Then why is her party so afraid to provide information on its accounts and contributors?
Just one question. Mrs Sonia Gandhi is given almost all the credit for the Right to Information Act 2005. Why is her party so afraid to provide information on its accounts and constibutors?
Political parties should come under the purview of RTI. The amount of money that is dispensed to voters during election times is very troubling. What is the source of all this money? I recall Rs. 5 crore left in a bus in TN during the last assembly elections in that state (Rs. 25 crore recovered from various parties, which I am sure is the just the tip of the iceberg).
There is no democratic process within any political party in India. In almost all parties, the control is in the hands of one party. Unless this concentration of power is broken and free and fair elections are held in each party, India will contnue to be ruled by an oligarchy.
BJP and Congress put aside their differences on this one. What a shame!
What if a person doesn't know the candidate, and he is interested in the R. T. I. act relevant? I mean, which parliamentarian is a star, like 'move star'? And, what does a parliamentarian responsible for, but to represent his/her constituency?
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT