*Shantaram Naik, M.P* *602, Brahmaputra,*
*Dr. B.D. Marg, New Delhi* *Mobile Nos. 9868181344, 09422439990* *17th December, 2013 * *PARLIAMENTARY PANEL AGREES THAT POLITICAL PARTIES ARE NOT PUBLIC AUTHORITIES* *Standing Committee of Parliament related to the Department of Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice has recommended the passage of The Right to Information (Amendment) Bill 2013 and have opined that political parties are not "public authorities" and hence they do not come within the ambit of RTI.* In a press communique issued today after presenting the Standing Committee Report, its Chairman Shri Shantaram Naik has said that the Committee has disagreed with the decision of Central Information Commission in the matter and said that 'The Right to Information (Amendment) Bill, 2013' rightly seeks to amend the Right to Information Act, 2005 in order to nullify order of full Bench of Central Information Commission (CIC) of 3rd June, 2013 Mr Naik said that the Committee agrees with the government that political parties are not public authorities since they are neither established nor constituted by or under the Constitution or any other law made by Parliament. They are rather registered/ recognized under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and Rules/Orders made or issued thereunder. The Committee noted that provisions of Representation of People Act, 1951 as well as Income Tax Act, 1961 deal with transparency in the financial aspects relating to the parties and their candidates. Declaring political parties as public authority under RTI Act would hamper their smooth internal functioning; party rivals may misuse the provisions of RTI Act adversely affecting the functioning of political parties. It will be reasonable, Mr Naik said, if political parties are made to give information regarding the selection of candidates at Block, District, Pradesh, and National levels giving reasons why in each candidates were selected or not selected. And it will be again irrational to make exception in some matters like internal decision making process once political parties are brought within the ambit of public authority. Some NGOs who said before the Committee that they were not interested in such details are not speaking the truth, Mr Naik said. Mr Naik said that political parties come within the definition of "public authority" or they do not come. One cannot take a stand which does not stand the test of logic, once you accept that the political parties come within the ambit of "public authority" there is no scope for diluting that stand, Mr Naik said . Mr Naik said that the main Act never intended to include political parties within the definition "public authority" which is evident from the fact that there is no mention, directly of indirectly, of political parties in the Act. Mr Naik said all six national political parties except CPI which were respondent to the CIC order of 3rd June, 2013 were categorical in their assertion that political parties are not public authority in relation to RTI Act. The Committee sought views of all recognized national and state parties on the proposed legislation. INC, NCP, CPI, CPI (M) and Desiya Murpokku Dravida Kazhagam (DMDK) have submitted their views which are in support of proposed amendment. However, the BJD through its Member in the Committee has categorically asserted that his party firmly opposes the proposed amendment and fully supports the spirit and tenor of the CIC order. CPI (M) representative personally appeared before the committee. By and large, the political parties are in favour of transparency in their financial matter in larger public interest, which already exists. The Committee gathers from the evidence submitted to the Committee that the larger view of the civil society is in opposition to the proposed amendment to RTI Act. They are of the view that information relating to financial matter of political parties need to be shared with public as bulk financing to political parties is under Rs.20,000 which is not reported to Election Commission of India and Income Tax Authorities and is, therefore, unaccounted for. The Committee understands that none of the six political parties, who happened to be respondent to CIC Order of 3rd June, 2013, challenged the order in the higher judiciary. That was an option with those political parties, which they did not exercise, possibly because of the fact that the instant case is a case of misinterpretation of a clear provision of law. The Attorney General of India was apprehensive that this law would not sustain the test of judicial scrutiny as it was creating a class within a class without having any consideration to the principle of intelligible differentia having reasonable nexus with objective of the Act, whereas the Law Secretary was of the view that it was quite sustainable since Parliament has legislative competence to override the CIC decision. The Committee, however, subscribes to the opinion expressed by the Law Secretary. The Committee is also of the strong view that laws should not be laid down through a process of misinterpretation of clear provisions of law. ------ *RELEASED THROUGH THE OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN, DEPARTMENT-RELATED PARLIAMENTARY STANDING COMMITTEE ON PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES, LAW AND JUSTICE*
