The court was urged to take note of Central Information Commission (CIC)’s orders describing the concessions given to political parties by the State. “CIC orders cannot be used to seek a writ from this court,” the Solicitor General for India replied.
—
THE Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on a batch of petitions seeking to bring political parties within the ambit of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 next week.
The two petitions, one by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and the other by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, contend that registered national and regional political parties be considered as “public authorities” under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.
A three-judge Bench led by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dr D.Y. Chandrachud and comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Mishra has posted the matter to August 1, 2023 for a detailed hearing.
The matter was not heard in detail today since the Attorney General of India, R. Venkataramani, who has appeared in the case previously, was not present in the court.
Senior advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the ADR, urged the court to take note of the Central Information Commission (CIC)’s June 2013 Order declaring six national political parties to be “public authorities” under the RTI Act.
These political parties are the Indian National Congress, Bharatiya Janata Party, Communist Party of India (Marxist), Communist Party of India, Nationalist Congress Party and Bahujan Samaj Party.
Summarising the CIC’s Order, Bhushan told the court, “They are given 100 percent income tax exemption, they are given official premises for use at virtually no cost, they are given various other concessions [such as] free air time and, therefore, they are substantially funded by the government.
“Apart from that, [the CIC has] held that political parties play a substantial role in the affairs of the State… They have the right to disqualify members of a legislative assembly and members of the Parliament, who vote against their whip.”
Adding to the above, senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for the petitioners, noted that the CIC had issued another Order in March 2015 reminding the political parties to follow its June 2013 Order.
“The respondents, as public authorities, have not implemented the directions contained in the commission’s Order and there is no evidence of any intention to do so,” the CIC had asserted in March 2016.
To this, the Solicitor General of India (SGI) Tushar Mehta replied, “CIC orders cannot be a basis to seek a writ from your lordships directing the legislature to incorporate a new entity to be brought within the RTI.”
“We are asking for an interpretation. That is all,” Sankaranarayanan retorted.
Meanwhile, advocate P.V. Dinesh, appearing for the Communist Party of India (Marxist), said the party supported the cause of financial transparency for political parties but was against compelling parties to reveal information such as “which candidate was selected for what reason and what discussion happened within the party”.
The CJI, in response, stated that “They have a point. They are saying ‘Don’t ask us to disclose why we chose a candidate.’ I don’t think we can even ask that.”
“Basically they (the petitioners) want to know how parties function,” said Mehta, describing the petition as seeking a “kind of superintendence” over political parties.
At this stage, Sankaranarayanan reminded the court of its directions to political parties and their candidates regarding mandatory disclosure of criminal antecedents, including giving reasons for fielding candidates with a criminal history.
Upadhyay’s petition contends that parties registered under Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 should be brought within the ambit of the RTI Act in the interest of transparency and accountability to the people, and to curb the use of black money in elections.
Previously, the Supreme Court had separated petitions challenging the electoral bonds scheme from the petitions in this matter.
Certain political parties have opposed the petitions, arguing that bringing parties under the ambit of the RTI Act may lead to an undemocratic infringement on their confidential discussions, including their attitudes towards the government and plans to organise agitations against ruling parties.
In an affidavit filed by the Department of Personnel and Training, the Union government has stated that the RTI “never visualised or considered to bring political parties within its ambit”.
The affidavit further contends that bringing political parties within the ambit of the RTI Act would hamper their smooth functioning and become a weak spot of which rivals with malicious intent could take an advantage.
The Association for Democratic Reforms and Another versus Union of India and Others W.P.(C) 333/2015
With Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay versus Union of India and Others W.P.(C) 237/2017
