NEW DELHI: Attorney general G E Vahanvation Tuesday opposed the bill pending in Parliament which seeks to keep political parties outside the...
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
COMMENTS