NEW DELHI: Attorney
general G E Vahanvation Tuesday opposed the bill pending in Parliament which
seeks to keep political parties outside the scope of the Right to Information
Act, raising the prospect that the anti-transparency move may not go through.
Appearing before
Parliament's standing committee on departments of personnel, public grievances,
law and justice, the AG said political parties should accept the Central
Information Commission's June 3 ruling bringing them within the purview of RTI
Act, disregarding the argument that subjecting them to RTI would render
political parties vulnerable to harassment or embarrassment.
Vahanvati's caution
follows growing misgivings among the political class about resistance to be
exposed to the sunlight of transparency. BJP had opposed the bill which was
brought to negate the CIC order, resulting in the matter being referred to the
standing committee.
There have also been
indications that Congress vice-president Rahul Gandhi may oppose the move as a
follow-up to his assault on the ordinance for convicted politicians. In fact,
individual ministers like Shashi Tharoor, minister of state for human
resource development, have already opposed the legislation in their
"personal" capacity.
Although Vahanvati said
it was open to political parties to individually challenge the CIC order in
higher courts, it will be interesting to see which one will stick out,
considering the emergence of a new constituency which values transparency and
accountability.
Vahanvati refused to
divulge what he said before the committee, but one of the attendees told TOI
that the AG said existing framework provided adequate safeguards for political
parties. He also said that it would not be advisable to amend the RTI Act to
shield political parties from answering questions from the public about their
functioning.
The source said the
Centre's top law officer cited of Sections 2 (providing among others the
definition of public authority) and 8 (exemption from disclosure of information)
of the RTI Act to observe that these would cushion political parties against
harassment.
What had riled the
political parties, with their opaque funding practices, was the CIC's
ruling that "people of India must know the source of expenditure incurred
by political parties and by the candidates in the process of election".
On June 3, The CIC had
ordered, "We have 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 public authorities under Section 2(h) of
the RTI Act."
The standing committee
headed by Shantaram Naik is examining the scope of the definition of ‘public
authority' as provided in Section 2(h) of the Act and whether the CIC had
expanded the definition to bring in political parties, triggering the introduction
of the RTI (Amendment) Bill, 2013.
The parliamentary panel
is holding interactions across the country on the proposed RTI (Amendment)
Bill, 2013 to elicit views of the public as well as activists and
intelligentsia on the CIC decision as well as the legislation it generated.
The committee has already
held meetings in Mumbai, Chennai, Jaipur and other cities and met government
authorities, PSU representatives and persons representing a cross-section of
vocation.
Naik had earlier said the
committee was examining whether proceedings of various confidential meetings of
political parties held for shortlisting or finalizing candidates would be
required to be disclosed if the CIC judgment was made final and the bill did
not become a law.
The full bench of the
commission had unanimously held that "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 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,'' the commission had said.
The order came after
activists Subhash Chandra Aggarwal and Anil Bairwal of the Association of
Democratic Reforms approached the CIC, requesting that political parties be
declared as public authorities.
Times View
The attorney general is
right when he suggests that the government should not seek to overturn the
Supreme Court order on RTI by bringing in a new law. In fact, even political
parties should not seek to get the order reversed. Given the extremely low level
of credibility that politicians as a class have in India, they must see this as
an opportunity to redeem themselves in the eyes of the aam admi. If they
willingly embrace transparency, it would help them bridge this credibility gap.
If, on the other hand, they choose to fight it, they will only confirm the
suspicion that they have much to hide.
Source : http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com
