Hide And Seek Not

The Congress-led UPA government, buffeted about by loud criticism whatever it does or fails to do, hasn’t perhaps had as much political support on any other issue. For, when it comes to insulating themselves from scrutiny, most parties stand united. The Congress may have been the prime mover of the RTI Act—which has brought much transparency to governance by allowing citizens to question all “public authorities”—but it does not want that spotlight upon itself. And like the Congress, most parties seem to prefer darkness and opa­city. On the cards, therefore, is an amendment to the RTI Act that could well negate a June 3 order of the chief information commissioner (CIC) bringing six national parties under the RTI Act and hinting that more could follow.

Some politicians stand out as fine exc­eptions. Among them is Raghuvansh Prasad, a senior leader of the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) and a former teacher. He believes there should be no suspicion of hanky-panky in the political classroom: parties must be open about how they conduct their affairs and the RTI Act enables this. Countering Union law minister Kapil Sibal, who goes by how a “public authority” is defined under the Act and therefore excludes parties from its ambit, Prasad says, “The engagement of parties with public aut­horities cannot be underestimated. Corruption is a major issue and there is no proper account of actual expenditure. Parties should show some magnanimity and throw open their accounts to the public which has elected them. It is sad to them ganging up on this issue.”

Prasad says he doesn’t mind going against his party chief Laloo Prasad Yadav. “I opposed his stand on FDI, and I’ll oppose this too,” he says. “When parties submit their accounts to the Ele­ction Commission and the inc­ome-tax authorities, why shouldn’t they be subject to the RTI Act?” But his stand—with which the Trinamool Congress and the CPI, as honorable exceptions,  are in agreement­—is untypical.

Speaking for the Trinamool, its chief whip Derek O’Brien says, “We certainly want political parties to come under the RTI to the degree that is practicable, parties need to be transparent about their acc­ounts and sources of funding and share these on multiple platforms. Let us emb­race RTI ourselves and not just recommend it for others.” As for the CPI, it has agreed to keep its accounts open but is in principle opp­osed to parties being seen as public authorities.

But by and large, parties alike have cemented themselves in opposition to the CIC’s order. They are unable to countenance making their accounts public, explaining donations and ans­wering questions on how they selected their election candidates. The way parties are run, the list of potentially embarrassing questions could be endless.

An indication of what the proposed amendment holds in store can be had from Union minister of state for personnel V. Narayanasamy’s statement (see interview) that all parties have been taken into confidence and all of them have reservations. What will come under the lens is Section 2 (h) of the Act, which defines what constitutes a public authority: “...any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted, (a) by or under the Constitution; (b) by any other law made by Parliament; (c) by any other law made by state legislatures; (d) by notification issued or order made by the app­ropriate government, and includes any (i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed; (ii) non-government org­a­nisation substantially financed, dir­­e­ctly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate government.” Going by the letter, parties do not count as public authorities; the argument for transparency was always a matter of keeping to the spirit of democracy. An amendment could well set down a clear exclusion of political parties.

Ironically, only four years ago, the government had assured the House it would review the number of organisations in the Second Schedule of the Act, which lists those exempt from disclosing information under the Act, and also make rules for more disclosure of information by public authorities. Politicians both in power and outside now insist on a literal interpretation of Section 2 (h).

Activists who toiled to draft the RTI in bill form and convince the government to be accountable to citizens are sad that efforts to keep parties out will weaken the democratic process. They say the whittling away began right at the bill-drafting stage and went on through its passage into law eight years ago. The proposed amendment could keep out those who need watching the most.