There is a unanimous opposition from political parties to the CIC order that puts them under the ambit of the RTI Act. Parimal Peeyush has the details.
There was distinct unanimity on television screens after an order by the Central Information Commission (CIC) put six national parties under the ambit of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Setting ideological and personal differences aside, the political class has united in their quest to prove why the act does not and should not apply to them and that the CIC had acted beyond its mandate.
On June 3, 2013, a full bench headed by Chief Information Commissioner Satyananda Mishra, held that the ‘‘INC, BJP, CPI(M), CPI, NCP and BSP have been substantially financed by the Central Government under section 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 in the ambit of section 2(h). The constitutional and legal provisions discussed herein above also point towards their character as public authorities... it is held that AICC/INC, BJP, CPI(M), CPI, NCP and BSP are public authorities under section 2(h) of the RTI Act.”
In October 2010, NGO Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and Subhash Chandra Aggarwal had filed RTIs seeking information regarding contributions received by the various political parties. In response, except the CPI, all other parties refused to disclose information stating that they don’t fall under the purview of the RTI Act. Subsequently, a complaint was filed with the CIC in March 2011 requesting that political parties be declared as public authorities.
Since then, political parties have launched an all out attack on the CIC for going beyond its mandate and explaining how and why they just could not be held accountable. And the consensus was breathtaking. Said Congress’s Janardan Dwivedi,‘‘It is not acceptable. Such an adventurist approach will damage democratic institutions’’. Sharad Yadav, Janata Dal (United) believed that the ‘‘CIC has acted outside its jurisdiction. The government should step in.’’ Congress’s archrival, BJP’s Nirmala Seetharaman, concurred. ‘‘Political parties are already giving information to the Election Commission (EC) and the Income Tax (IT) department. How many authorities are we going to respond to?’’ The CPM could not agree more with the BJP. Says CPM’s Nilotpal Basu, ‘‘this order opens doors to interference in the internal functioning of political parties. There also needs to be clarity on whether political parties are public bodies in the sense as laid down by the Constitution.’’
Political parties are wary when it comes to transparency in their own functioning. Their major contention: we cannot be defined as pubic authorities since we have not been established or constituted by and under the Constitution, nor by any other law made by Parliament or the State Legislature, nor are these bodies owned or controlled by any appropriate government.
The CIC agrees but declares them as public authority due to the substantial funding they receive from the government in the form of land, accommodation, free air time on state-run Doordarshan and All India Radio, electoral rolls, income tax exemptions and other services availed at highly subsidised rates.
Other major points that parties have raised include ambiguity on being answerable to multiple authorities and that the information, particularly related to funding of political parties, is already being furnished to the IT department and the EC. But critics are unimpressed. “They do not know the ABC of the RTI Act. There is a misconception that they will now be answerable to two authorities - the EC and the CIC. RTI Act does not say that public authorities are accountable to the CIC. It says that they are accountable to the public. The role of the CIC comes much later,’’ RTI activist and petitioner in this case Subhash Chandra told TSI.
Another concern is interference in internal party affairs. However, activists point out that there are provisions under Section 8 of the RTI Act that enables them to withhold information. “It is the fear of the unknown that is making political parties so wary,’’ says founder member of ADR Jagdeep Chhokar. He adds,‘‘When the RTI Act was being implemented, there was stiff opposition from the bureaucracy. Later, a survey revealed that over 60 per cent of RTI petitions filed came from government servants. In the present context too, it is the political leaders who are scared of RTI, not the rank and file,’’ he adds.
Parties are apprehensive on the issue of funding, most of which comes in the form of donations. Under the Representation of People Act, 1951, parties are required to submit contribution details received in excess of Rs 20,000 from any person or a company. Politicians however do not include in it multiple donations made by the same person, entity or company aggregating Rs 20,000 or above during the year. Political parties have also adopted the coupon system for collecting funds by issuing of coupons in lieu of receipts to donors for cash contributions. Since these are cash donations, it becomes all the more difficult to establish the identity of the donor. This implies that a lot of cash donations received remain unaccounted for in the books of accounts as only those amounts would be recorded for which a receipt has been issued.
Data obtained through RTI makes a strong case for transparency. Income of political parties from 2004-05 to 2010-11 shows steady growth. The total income of INC went from Rs 222 crore in 2004-05 to Rs 307.08 crore in 2010-11. This was followed by the BJP whose income rose from Rs 104 crores in 2004-05 to Rs 168 crores in 2010-11 and the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) which registered a growth from Rs 4.2 crores in 2004-05 to Rs 115.7 crores in 2010-11.
When it comes to the share of donations received in excess of Rs 20,000 in total income, BSP has declared that the party has not received any donations above Rs 20,000 though its total income from the party's ITR has been declared at Rs 17267.84 lakh; of the national parties, 57.02 per cent of total income for CPI has been received through donations above Rs 20,000 while BJP’s donations above Rs 20,000 amount to 22.76 per cent of the total income. Of the regional parties, RJD (56.13 percent) and TDP (37 percent) derive maximum income from donations above Rs 20,000.
There was distinct unanimity on television screens after an order by the Central Information Commission (CIC) put six national parties under the ambit of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Setting ideological and personal differences aside, the political class has united in their quest to prove why the act does not and should not apply to them and that the CIC had acted beyond its mandate.
On June 3, 2013, a full bench headed by Chief Information Commissioner Satyananda Mishra, held that the ‘‘INC, BJP, CPI(M), CPI, NCP and BSP have been substantially financed by the Central Government under section 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 in the ambit of section 2(h). The constitutional and legal provisions discussed herein above also point towards their character as public authorities... it is held that AICC/INC, BJP, CPI(M), CPI, NCP and BSP are public authorities under section 2(h) of the RTI Act.”
In October 2010, NGO Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and Subhash Chandra Aggarwal had filed RTIs seeking information regarding contributions received by the various political parties. In response, except the CPI, all other parties refused to disclose information stating that they don’t fall under the purview of the RTI Act. Subsequently, a complaint was filed with the CIC in March 2011 requesting that political parties be declared as public authorities.
Since then, political parties have launched an all out attack on the CIC for going beyond its mandate and explaining how and why they just could not be held accountable. And the consensus was breathtaking. Said Congress’s Janardan Dwivedi,‘‘It is not acceptable. Such an adventurist approach will damage democratic institutions’’. Sharad Yadav, Janata Dal (United) believed that the ‘‘CIC has acted outside its jurisdiction. The government should step in.’’ Congress’s archrival, BJP’s Nirmala Seetharaman, concurred. ‘‘Political parties are already giving information to the Election Commission (EC) and the Income Tax (IT) department. How many authorities are we going to respond to?’’ The CPM could not agree more with the BJP. Says CPM’s Nilotpal Basu, ‘‘this order opens doors to interference in the internal functioning of political parties. There also needs to be clarity on whether political parties are public bodies in the sense as laid down by the Constitution.’’
Political parties are wary when it comes to transparency in their own functioning. Their major contention: we cannot be defined as pubic authorities since we have not been established or constituted by and under the Constitution, nor by any other law made by Parliament or the State Legislature, nor are these bodies owned or controlled by any appropriate government.
The CIC agrees but declares them as public authority due to the substantial funding they receive from the government in the form of land, accommodation, free air time on state-run Doordarshan and All India Radio, electoral rolls, income tax exemptions and other services availed at highly subsidised rates.
Other major points that parties have raised include ambiguity on being answerable to multiple authorities and that the information, particularly related to funding of political parties, is already being furnished to the IT department and the EC. But critics are unimpressed. “They do not know the ABC of the RTI Act. There is a misconception that they will now be answerable to two authorities - the EC and the CIC. RTI Act does not say that public authorities are accountable to the CIC. It says that they are accountable to the public. The role of the CIC comes much later,’’ RTI activist and petitioner in this case Subhash Chandra told TSI.
Another concern is interference in internal party affairs. However, activists point out that there are provisions under Section 8 of the RTI Act that enables them to withhold information. “It is the fear of the unknown that is making political parties so wary,’’ says founder member of ADR Jagdeep Chhokar. He adds,‘‘When the RTI Act was being implemented, there was stiff opposition from the bureaucracy. Later, a survey revealed that over 60 per cent of RTI petitions filed came from government servants. In the present context too, it is the political leaders who are scared of RTI, not the rank and file,’’ he adds.
Parties are apprehensive on the issue of funding, most of which comes in the form of donations. Under the Representation of People Act, 1951, parties are required to submit contribution details received in excess of Rs 20,000 from any person or a company. Politicians however do not include in it multiple donations made by the same person, entity or company aggregating Rs 20,000 or above during the year. Political parties have also adopted the coupon system for collecting funds by issuing of coupons in lieu of receipts to donors for cash contributions. Since these are cash donations, it becomes all the more difficult to establish the identity of the donor. This implies that a lot of cash donations received remain unaccounted for in the books of accounts as only those amounts would be recorded for which a receipt has been issued.
Data obtained through RTI makes a strong case for transparency. Income of political parties from 2004-05 to 2010-11 shows steady growth. The total income of INC went from Rs 222 crore in 2004-05 to Rs 307.08 crore in 2010-11. This was followed by the BJP whose income rose from Rs 104 crores in 2004-05 to Rs 168 crores in 2010-11 and the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) which registered a growth from Rs 4.2 crores in 2004-05 to Rs 115.7 crores in 2010-11.
When it comes to the share of donations received in excess of Rs 20,000 in total income, BSP has declared that the party has not received any donations above Rs 20,000 though its total income from the party's ITR has been declared at Rs 17267.84 lakh; of the national parties, 57.02 per cent of total income for CPI has been received through donations above Rs 20,000 while BJP’s donations above Rs 20,000 amount to 22.76 per cent of the total income. Of the regional parties, RJD (56.13 percent) and TDP (37 percent) derive maximum income from donations above Rs 20,000.
For More IIPM Info, Visit below mentioned IIPM articles
IIPM’s Management Consulting Arm-Planman Consulting
Professor Arindam Chaudhuri – A Man For The Society….
IIPM: Indian Institute of Planning and Management
IIPM makes business education truly global
Management Guru Arindam Chaudhuri
Rajita Chaudhuri-The New Age Woman
Professor Arindam Chaudhuri – A Man For The Society….
IIPM: Indian Institute of Planning and Management
IIPM makes business education truly global
Management Guru Arindam Chaudhuri
Rajita Chaudhuri-The New Age Woman
| ExecutiveMBA |
