Modi sarkar's move to amend RTI to save political parties is undemocratic

The Modi government has filed an affidavit before the Supreme Court (SC) backing immunity for political parties from making disclosures under the RTI Act. With the government in solidarity with political parties resisting RTI at the cost of losing the trust of people, it may find it difficult to defend its stand in court but also to justify it.

While the government has relied on arguments already rejected in the Central Information Commission (CIC) order holding political parties amenable to RTI, it has failed to factor in the fact that its stand also involved denial of the right of people to make an informed choice during elections. The ratio of SC judgements on the right of people to know about criminal antecedents and other relevant particulars of candidates in fray, to enable an informed choice during elections, in my view squarely applies to political parties as well.

The Centre's argument that political parties being private bodies were wrongly classified as public authorities flies in the face of several statutory and constitutional provisions giving political parties a say in policy decisions, law-making and governance.

While powers like the authority to issue whips and seek disqualification of elected representatives not towing the party line give legislative powers to political parties, the position of the Leader of Opposition (LoP) - as the name suggests - is not for conferring powers on an individual but on a party in opposition. The LoP ensures the say of his party in several key appointments. Besides, it goes without saying that the party in power wields great influence on the functioning of the government. In fact, the Constitution-makers envisaged a dominant role for political parties in the working of democratic institutions. "The Constitution can provide only the organs of State such as the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. The factors on which the working of those organs of the State depend are the people and the political parties they will set up as their instruments to carry out their wishes and their politics," Dr BR Ambedkar, the architect of the Constitution, said in the constituent assembly.

The argument that political parties were purely private bodies was rebutted convincingly by the CIC which pointed to indirect government funding in the form of tax concessions and grant of land, bungalows and other benefits at concessional rates.

The influence of parties on the government is evident from the fact that the political parties scripted an amendment to the RTI Act to overcome the CIC order instead of challenging it in appeal. Though the Bill lapsed with the dissolution of the 15th Lok Sabha, the UPA government had decided to go ahead despite an opinion against it by the then attorney general.

The argument by the government that legal provisions already mandated disclosure of financial details to the income tax department and the Election Commission (EC) is self-defeating. The provisions had failed to ensure transparency and accountability due to loopholes and absence of mechanism to verify correctness of disclosures. An MP in her dissenting note before the parliamentary committee, which cleared the amendment to insulate political parties from RTI, pointed out the source of only about 20 per cent of funds collected by parties were declared under the existing legal regime with exemption being sought on the remaining 80 per cent, claiming they came as small cash donations less than Rs 20,000.

The problem of non-disclosure has been no secret with the law commission in its 255th report on electoral reforms recommending enforcement of RTI as the solution. A trust deficit would lead to a disconnect which would be fatal to democracy.