Why should political parties be exempted.

Already they are opaque as to how decisions are

made as political parties are treated as the leader's property to be handed over to their
descendents. This makes political parties succession in leadership within family circles as if
they are hereditary monarchs. The political parties become ossified leading to stagnation of
country's development.

This proposed amendment to RTIA is the litmus test to parties to stand

up or against RTI. The Civil Society including the media has to stand
up against the amendment, come what may! Yes, if Samaykanthra
agitation is so strong, then, the protest against this amendment must
be much more and lasting till the proposal is defeated. So, what is
the basic difference among INC, BJP, NCP, CPM, BSP and CPI? Whom are
these parties trying to fool with 1st front to 6th front? It finally
comes down to the fact that there is no basic difference among these
parties. It is a shame that BSP, CPM and CPI also stoop so low as to
cheat the public to this extent.

The very fact of registration under the Representation of Peoples Act renders the
political parties as "public bodies". This is reinforced by the fact that the income of
political parties is made exempt from income tax - that is, the state foregoes its
revenue in the public interest so that political parties can function with adequate
funds. It may also be of interest to note that office bearers of cooperative societies
registered under the Cooperatives Act are deemed to be "public servants". The
scope and functions of political parties are national/regional and it only fair and
reasonable therefore that they should be subject to the RTI Act, at least in the
matter of sources and application of funds and annual report of activities. The
political parties should function in a transparent fashion and should in the eyes of
the public be seen to be transparent

The government has opposed in Supreme Court a plea to bring political parties under the ambit
of RTI Act, saying this would adversely impact their internal working and political functioning.
Submitting an affidavit, the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) has said the Central
Information Commission (CIC) erroneously ruled in June 2013 that political parties are public
authorities under the RTI Act and, hence, are accountable under the transparency law.
If political parties are held to be public authorities under RTI Act, it would hamper their smooth
internal working, which is not the objective of the RTI Act and was not envisaged by Parliament.
Further, it is apprehended that political rivals might file RTI applications with malicious
intentions, adversely affecting their political functioning, the affidavit stated.
The DoPT claimed that the CIC had made a very liberal interpretation of RTI Act, leading to
an erroneous conclusion that political parties are public authorities.

In its judgment, the CIC had said political parties should be held accountable under the RTI Act
since their constitution was akin to setting up a body by the government and they also performed
public functions after availing various financial aid and concessions by the Centre. But this
judgment remained on paper and the parties did not comply with the mandate of RTI Act.
Complaining non-compliance, applicants Subhash Chandra Aggarwal and Anil Bairwal of the
Association of Democratic Reforms (ADR) approached the CIC which, in March, directed the
DoPT to take action. ADR and Aggarwal moved a PIL in Supreme Court, seeking a declaration
that political parties are public authorities and should disclose details of income and expenditure
for public scrutiny.
A bench led by Chief Justice H L Dattu issued notice in July and the DoPT filed an affidavit last
Friday, stating RTI Act never envisaged to bring political parties under its ambit. It said the CIC
was wrong in its judgment since political parties cannot be termed as public authorities because
they are formed neither under the Constitution nor under any law of Parliament. Performance of
public duty is also not a condition mentioned under the law for defining a body as a public
authority, it stated.
About checks on financial transactions of parties, the DoPT said there were provisions under the
Representation of the People Act and the Income Tax Act, fastening a liability on them to make
sufficient disclosure regarding income and expenditure.
Adequate provisions for explanations and penalties, it claimed, were also stipulated under these
Acts and that Election Commission places all requisite information on its website. These
provisions ensure adequate transparency in financial aspects of a political party, the DoPT said.
With a view to annul the adverse effects of the erroneous conclusion by the CIC, the
government said, a Bill was introduced in 2013 to amend the RTI Act so as to specifically
exclude political parties from the definition of public authority but it lapsed with the dissolution
of the Lok Sabha in 2014.

Retrograde step, says AAP

The Aam Aadmi Party on Monday opposed the Centres move to keep political parties out of the
ambit of RTI Act. The party called it a retrograde step that will lower the credibility of the
political parties.

Hindu

Political parties seek to represent the people and to take decisions on their behalf. But in India
they have so far resisted attempts to be listed as public authorities under the Right to
Information Act and thus be made liable to publicly disclose financial assets. With the Supreme
Court now asking six national parties why they should not be brought under the RTI, India is a
step closer to making its political organisations accountable in their financial transactions. In
conducting their financial affairs in an opaque manner, some parties have been able to hide their
sources of funding, and the extent of their assets and financial holdings. When the Central
Information Commission tried to bring them under the ambit of the RTI, the previous United
Progressive Alliance government actually considered amending the Act to nullify the order.
Indeed, political parties have neither challenged the CICs order nor complied with it. But in
March this year, the CIC reiterated its order as final and binding, even as it admitted it was
unable to act against the parties that had not replied to its notices and had ignored its order.
Similarly, the Election Commission, which is a party to the case before the Supreme Court, has
been unable to check financial irregularities among political parties; it does not have either the
ability or the mandate to verify the claims of donations made to political parties. Although
parties have to declare to the Election Commission all donations in excess of Rs.20,000 they
receive, they resort to under-reporting to evade this clause. Most of the donations are shown as
having come in smaller sums.
Donations to political parties are not always voluntary, and in any case the donors big
businesses and corporate houses get favours in return when the parties they fund come to
power. Most of the donations are made illegally, through off-the-books transactions, and the
parties repay their benefactors in terms of policy concessions or amendments to rules. Business

houses often strike deals with political parties, which result in acts of corruption when they get
into government. Indeed, many business houses support more than one party, extending
donations both legally and illegally as black money. Thus, requiring political parties to open up
their financial transactions, the donations they receive and the expenses they incur, to public
scrutiny is imperative to bring down levels of corruption and make them more accountable. What
the CIC was unable to achieve since the implementation of the RTI, the Supreme Court should
be able to do. As was argued in the petition before the court, the right to information has been
held to be a part of the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the
Constitution. That freedom cannot be undermined.