If you thought India's political parties were a fractious lot, given to squabbling and scoring brownie points off each other, you'd probably be right. But there are times when they show uncommon unity. One such rare instance of parties of every stripe making common cause was in evidence last week when the government tabled a bill in Parliament to amend the Right to Information Act. Its purpose: to keep political parties outside the purview of the law.
Simply put, the amendment to Section 2 of the RTI Act clarifies that political parties cannot be treated as 'public authorities'. That's a key qualification. The RTI Act applies to public authorities — institutions that are substantially funded by the government. Ergo, under the amended law, political parties cannot be asked to provide any information on their functioning.
The bill also adds a new section to the law, stating that the amendment will apply 'notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, decree or order of any court or commission...'
The RTI Act, 2005, a landmark legislation enacted during the United Progressive Alliance's first term, promotes transparency in government institutions by giving citizens the right to information regarding their functioning. So the move by the political class to keep itself outside its ambit has sparked widespread outrage. Street protests have taken place, online petitions have been launched, and signature campaigns mobilised against it. So far, though, it doesn't look likely that popular sentiment alone will scupper an amendment bill that has the backing of virtually the entire political fraternity.
To understand why the government has decided to amend the RTI Act now, one needs to go back a few months. On June 3, the Central Information Commission (CIC), a quasi-judicial body authorised to act on complaints regarding citizen's right to information, gave a ruling that described six national parties — Congress, BJP, CPI(M), CPI, NCP and BSP — as public authorities. 'We have no hesitation in concluding that INC, BJP, CPI(M), CPI, NCP and BSP have been substantially financed by the central government and therefore they are held to be public authorities under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act,' ruled the CIC bench comprising chief information commissioner Satyanand Mishra and information commissioners Annapurna Dixit and M.L. Sharma.
According to the CIC, since the parties enjoy income tax exemptions, get land and buildings at concessional rates, and free airtime on All India Radio and Doordarshan, they can be regarded as substantially funded by the central government. The CIC also said these parties should appoint public information officers within six weeks from the date of the ruling to deal with RTI applications.
'The CIC gave an informed judgment going into the spirit of the RTI Act,' says Trilochan Sastry, founder and trustee of the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), a non-government organisation that works towards electoral and political reforms. In 2010, Anil Bairwal of the ADR had submitted RTI applications to the six parties, seeking information on their sources of funding. When the parties refused to provide the information, the matter went to the CIC, eventually leading to the June 3 ruling.
-
KNOW BAR: Citizens protest against the RTI amendment bill in Delhi
What has got activists fuming is that the government is trying to amend the law itself to make the ruling irrelevant. 'The amendment is a brazen flouting of the CIC order. They are flouting not just the law but the entire concept of the rule of law in this country,' says Aruna Roy, social activist and member of the National Campaign for People's Right to Information (NCPRI).
'It's sheer arrogance on their part,' says Shailesh Gandhi, RTI activist and a former information commissioner. 'Arrogance and fear of the unknown.'
Gandhi and others point out that if political parties disagreed with the CIC order, they could have gone to the courts to challenge it. Bringing an amendment sidesteps due process, they say. 'Besides, any amendment to the RTI Act should come about only after widespread consultations with the people of the country because it involves their fundamental right to know,' insists Nikhil Dey, NCPRI member.
Of course, political parties have been quick to come up with a barrage of arguments as to why they should not be held to account under the RTI Act. First of all, they say that they are not public authorities because they aren't government institutions. They are recognised under the Representation of the People Act, and not by the Constitution or through an act of Parliament. Second, that just because they get land at concessional rates, enjoy IT exemptions and so on, they cannot be deemed 'public authorities'. To cite these as examples of being 'substantially funded' by the government is 'erroneous and irrelevant', asserts CPI(M) leader Prakash Karat.
From the other end of the political spectrum, Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi, national spokesperson and vice-president of the BJP, pipes up, 'By that logic any individual sitting on a bus or a train becomes a public authority because he or she is availing of public utilities.'
The parties have also declared that if they come under the RTI Act, they may be asked to reveal information about their strategic decisions — which could be used by their rivals to undermine them.
And last but not the least, all of them emphasise that while they are totally committed to transparency in their financial transactions, that transparency is already in effect. They declare their income to the income tax authorities and details of any donations above Rs 20,000 to the Election Commission. And this information is available to anyone who seeks it.
Therein lies the rub. Activists point out that if political parties show that they received, say, Rs 100 crore through small donations, each less than Rs 20,000, then that amount stays below the radar of the EC. If they were to come under the RTI Act, however, parties could be asked to furnish information on these so-called, sub-Rs 20,000 donations too — donations that, surprisingly, often amount to hundreds of crores of rupees.
'This is what they fear,' says Sastry. 'What they disclose to the IT authorities is the white money. There is a huge trail of unaccounted for sources of funding that remains undisclosed.'
Indeed, at a time when the political class as a whole is suffering from a severe trust deficit, the speed with which the government has moved to make parties immune from the RTI Act is remarkable. No less remarkable than the fact that most political parties are rooting for the amendment. Even Derek O' Brien, Trinamul Congress MP in the Rajya Sabha, who had earlier spoken in favour of the CIC ruling, now says enigmatically, 'Once there is a convergence of views (in the TMC) on this issue, we will share it on the floor of the house.'
Incidentally, politicians are also united in their support for the government's decision to amend the Representation of the People Act to upend a Supreme Court order calling for the disqualification of MPs and MLAs who are convicted of an offence that carries more than two years' imprisonment.
As far as the amendment to the RTI Act is concerned, given the political consensus, it may go through. If that happens, activists and civil society groups plan to challenge the amendment in court. 'Then we will go to the streets,' says Dey. 'We will reveal the doublespeak of political parties. It will matter when they come to us for votes.'
While RTI activists are digging in for their fight to preserve the sanctity of the act, Gandhi feels that parties are needlessly leery about coming under the RTI. Not all politicians are rogues, he says. 'The law may cause some minor embarrassments. Experience shows that it has not damaged any institution significantly. Parties should realise that in the long run, coming under the RTI Act will lead to better political systems, and hence, a better country.'
It's a pity that political parties, busy fencing themselves off from the law, do not share that vision.
Point, Counter Point
POLITICAL PARTIES SAY...
They are not public authorities. Hence, not under the RTI Act
The law will force them to reveal intra-party strategic decisions
Financial transparency exists already. They disclose their financial details to the IT authorities and the EC
CRITICS SAY...
As per the CIC ruling, parties are public authorities, substantially funded by the government. Hence they are under the RTI Act
Parties can claim exemptions so they don't have to reveal strategic decisions
Disclosures to IT authorities and the EC are partial. For total financial transparency RTI is needed.
