Subscribe to the Bombay Chartered Accountant Journal Subscribe Now!

July 2013

PART A: Orders of CIC

By Narayan Varma, Chartered Accountant
Reading Time 9 mins
fiogf49gjkf0d
  • Political parties: Section 2(h) of the RTI Act:

Three-member-bench of CIC [Satyananda Mishra (Chief IC), Mrs. Annapurna Dixit (IC) & M. L. Sharma (IC)] passed an order dated 03-06-2013 in the case where the Respondents were six political parties:

1. Indian National Congress/All India Congress Committee (AICC);
2. Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP);
3. Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPM);
4. Communist Party of India (CPI);
5. Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) and
6. Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP).

The main issues raised by the complainants were: Disclosure of accounts and funding of political parties.

Some political parties in response to RTI applications of complainants stated that they were not “public authority” and hence not covered under RTI.

Chief Information Commissioner noted that the matters in hand raised complex issues of law and hence constituted a full bench as noted above.

Before the Commission, the complainants made extensive submissions to contend that Political Parties fall under the ambit of section 2(h) of RTI Act.

Above submissions were supported by various arguments including

(i) That section 80 GGB of the Income-tax Act which provides that contribution made by an individual or a company to a Political Party is deductible from the total income of the assessee. This provision is exclusively applicable to the Political Parties and is suggestive of indirect financing of the Political Parties by the State.

(ii) After various RTI applications were filed with the Central Agencies, it was discovered that Political Parties enjoy a number of “facilities” provided to them by the government. This is a clear instance of being “financed indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate governments” which puts Political Parties squarely under the definition of ‘public authority’ as provided for in section 2(h)(d) (ii) of RTI Act.

(iii) If closely monitored and totalled, the total public funds spent on Political Parties would possibly amount to hundreds of crores.

In its decision, Commission quoted Harold Laski:

“The life of the democratic State is built upon the party-system and it is important at the outset to discuss the part played by party in the arrangement of affairs. Briefly, that part may be best described by saying that parties arrange the issues upon which people are to vote. It is obvious that in the confused welter of the modern State, there must be some selection of problems as more urgent than others. It is necessary to select them as urgent and to present solution of them which may be acceptable to the citizen-body. It is that task of selection, the party undertakes. It acts, in Mr. Lowell’s phrase, as the broker of ideas. From the mass of opinions, sentiments, beliefs, by which the electorate moves, it chooses out those it judges most likely to meet with general acceptance. It organises persons to advocate its own view of their meaning. It states that view as the issue upon which the voter has to make up his mind. Its power enables it to put forward for election candidates who are willing to identity themselves with its view. Since its opponents will do the same, the electorate, thereby, is enabled to vote as a mass and decision that would otherwise be chaotic, assumes some coherency and direction. What, at least, is certain, is that without parties there would be no means available to us of enlisting the popular decision in such a way as to secure solutions capable of being interpreted as politically satisfactory.”

The Commission then notes:

The question before the Commission is whether INC/AICC, BJP, CPI(M), CPI, NCP and BSP can be held to be Public Authorities u/s. 2(h) of the RTI Act. The complainants have adduced the following three principal grounds to persuade the Commission to hold that the aforesaid Political Parties are Public Authorities, viz:-

(i) Indirect substantial financing by the Central Government;

(ii) Performance of public duty by the Political Parties; and

(iii) Constitutional/legal provisions vesting Political Parties with rights and liabilities

Substantial financing of Political Parties by the Central Govt.

After considering various basis of state financing political parties, the Commission concluded, we are of the considered opinion that Central Government has contributed significantly to the indirect financing of Political Parties in-question.

On the issue of “substantially financed” again it noted:

Large tracts of land in prime areas of Delhi have been placed at the disposal of the Political Parties in-question at exceptionally low rates. Besides, huge Government accommodations have been placed at the disposal of Political Parties at hugely cheap rates thereby bestowing financial benefits on them. The Income Tax exemptions granted and the free air time on AIR and Doordarshan at the time of elections also has substantially contributed to the financing of the Political Parties by the Central Government. We have, therefore, no hesitation in concluding that INC/AICC, BJP, CPI(M), CPI, NCP and BSP have been substantially financed by the Central Government and, therefore, they are held to be the public authorities u/s. 2(h) of the RTI Act.

Performance of Public Duty

Political Parties are the unique institution of the modern constitutional State. These are essentially political institutions and are non-governmental. Their uniqueness lies in the fact that inspite of being non-governmental, they come to wield or directly or indirectly influence exercise of governmental power. It would be odd to argue that transparency is good for all State organs but not so good for Political Parties, which, in reality, control all the vital organs of the State.

The people of India must know the source of expenditure incurred by Political Parties and by the candidates in the process of election. These judicial pronouncements unmistakably commend progressively higher level of transparency in the functioning of Political Parties in general and their funding in particular.

We may also add that the preamble to the Constitution of India aims at securing to all its citizens: JUSTICE, social, economic and political; LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; and EQUALITY of status and of opportunity. Coincidentally, the preamble of the RTI Act also aims to promote these principles in the form of transparency and accountability in the working of the every public authority. It also aims to create an ‘informed citizenry’ and to contain corruption and to hold government and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed. Needless to say, Political Parties are important political institutions and can play a critical role in heralding transparency in public life. Political Parties continuously perform public functions which define parameters of governance and socio-economic development in the country.

In view of the nature of public functions performed by Political Parties, we conclude that Political Parties in question are Public Authorities u/s. 2(h) of the RTI Act.

Constitutional/legal provisions vesting Political Parties with rights and liabilities


The appellants have also contended that Political Parties have constitutional and legal rights and liabilities and therefore, need to be held to be Public Authorities. The argument runs thus. Political parties are required to be registered with the ECI u/s. 29A of R.P. Act, 1951-a Central Legislation. An association or body gets the status of a political party on its registration. ECI awards symbols to Political Parties under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, only after registration. The ECI calls for details of expenses made by Political Parties in the elections. Contributions of the value of Rs. 20,000/- and above received from any person or a Company by a Political Party are required to be intimated to ECI u/s. 29C of the R.P. Act. ECI is vested with superintendence, direction and control of elections under Article 324 of the Constitution. ECI is also vested with the authority to suspend or withdraw recognition of a political party in certain contingencies. More importantly, Political Parties can recommend disqualification of Members of the House in certain contingencies under the Tenth Schedule. The contention is that the aforesaid constitutional/statutory powers of Political Parties bring them under the ambit of section 2(h).

We find the above submissions quite compelling and unerringly pointing towards their character as public authority.

It may be recalled that the INC/AICC and the BJP have made a bland assertion that they are not Public Authorities under the RTI Act. CPI(M) has disclosed some information to the Commission regarding allotment of land to it by the Central Government on certain terms and conditions but has not conceded that it is a Public Authority u/s. 2(h) of the RTI Act. The contentions of the above parties have to be rejected in the light of findings recorded herein above.

Based on above discussion, the Commission concluded:

In view of the above discussion, we hold that INC, BJP, CPM, CPI, NCP and BSP have been substantially financed by the Central Government u/s. 2(h) (ii) of the RTI Act. The criticality of the role being played by these Political Parties in our democratic set up and the nature of duties performed by them also point towards their public character, bringing them under the ambit of section 2(h). The constitutional and legal provisions discussed herein above also point towards their character as public authorities.

The Presidents, General/Secretaries of the Political Parties are hereby directed to designate CPIOs and the Appellate Authorities at their headquarters in 6 weeks time. The CPIOs so appointed will respond to the RTI applications extracted in this order in 4 weeks time. Besides, the Presidents/General Secretaries of the above mentioned Political Parties are also directed to comply with the provisions of section 4(1) (b) of the RTI Act by way of making voluntary disclosures on the subjects mentioned in the said clause.

[Complaints: (1) Shri Subhash Chandra Aggarwal (2) Shri Anil Bairwal vs. Respondents 6 Political Parties as noted above: CIC/SM/C/2011/00138 &000838 decided on 3rd June 2013]

Note: Many paragraphs as above are reproduction of the order.

You May Also Like