None Insulted:

August 06/2013: With the parliament opening its Monsoon Session, a heated discussion is going on in the media about the central government’s move to amend the RTI Act with a view to excluding political parties from its ambit. The amendment is expected to come up before Parliament this time as the Union Cabinet has taken a decision to effect changes in the act in ways as to exclude political parties from the provisions, citing the ground that parties are not public authorities. The issue arose out of a recent directive by the Central Information Commission that six political parties at the national level would come under the purview of the RTI Act that so far limited itself to governmental affairs and agencies funded by the government. The directive cannot be faulted.

RTI Act, introduced in the country eight years ago, was a major step forward in bringing about governmental transparency, and it has been a success, not fully but to an extent, from the people’s point of view. It gives them the right to ask questions and get information by way of written reply from a public authority – “a body of government or an instrumentality of state” – in a matter of 30 days. The Act was hailed as a move that promoted a “citizen-centric approach” towards governance. That, by design or by default, it has left out several areas of public activities that require more transparency is without doubt. Viewed in this backdrop, there is merit in the contention of the CIC that national level political parties cannot be excluded from RTI provisions in so far as they receive governmental funding – which is over and above the funds they collect from the public in normal course. The CIC decision is based on sound logic, and need be taken in a positive way.

However, political parties saw it as a new threat –coming as it does from the CIC – and sees in it similarities in the Election Commission diktats to them off and on. Argument is also that since political parties give all relevant details of their funds to the Election Commission and the income tax authorities, there would be no need as such to open their accounts to public queries by way of RTI applications. Argument is also that all kinds of questions could eventually be posed in a freewheeling way, making functioning of political parties difficult. A counter-argument by the Association of Democratic Reforms is that the IT returns being filed by the national political parties revealed some truths about their funding, but not the whole truth – in as much that sources of only about 20 percent of the income were disclosed.

Politics is the art of engaging people in positive ways; involving them in the running of the nation, and by extension their own affairs at a collective level. There cannot be a wall between the people and politics, or political parties for that matter. Their very sustenance is inter-related. To that extent, people have a right to know as to from where and how the funding for political parties come. Secrecy would only work to the disadvantage of political parties in the long run, as transparency is a must for all organizations engaged in public activities.

But the issue does not end there. As of now, under the RTI Act, transparency is partial; not total. Officials decide what information can be provided and what cannot be, mostly taking the cover at times rightly and at times wrongly of the so-called sensitive nature of the information that is sought. Officials could argue, for instance, that revealing such and such information could jeopardize national security; or that it would come in the way of norms of governmental secrecy relating even to activities outside the realm of national security. Rules and regulations apart, officials have their own ways of protecting themselves. A usual excuse is that “files are missing.” That could draw the curtains down on what could otherwise have been a scandalous expose.

Transparency concerns all – bureaucrats, judiciary, corporate houses that avail of government funds or raise money from the public and even many of the NGOs which receive governmental funds.

Matters relating to judiciary also are not easy to come forth; no judge would give out information which would put the judiciary in a fix.  For instance, it is not possible to extract information from a High Court or the Supreme Court as to how many judgements a particular judge had passed during her/his tenure, how many matters were heard and what was the average time taken for each judgement. These are times when even the judiciary is caught in various scandals relating to bribe-taking, fixing and manipulating orders or judgements.The common man is deprived of such information

In fact, even when it comes to political parties, why exclude some and include some – like the present listing of six national-level parties. Let all political parties come under the purview of the RTI Act, so that the people would have a clear idea of how the political system here works. Transparency is easier said than done. It requires a resolve on the part of the administration to change things for the better. A change in the RTI Act to protect political parties from prying eyes alone would not serve the purpose. Rather, it would send the wrong signals to people that politicians have something that they wish to hide from the public. Such moves would only work to the disadvantage of political system in India.

On the other hand, the effort should be to rectify the flaws in the RTI Act, in ways as would include in its ambit all those who have been left out of its purview for one reason or the other. Transparency cannot be selective. No one need be insulated from its effects.