RTI in politics

Bringing political parties within the fold of law will not help

The petition before the Supreme Court to bring political parties within the purview of the Right to Information (RTI) Act seeks the wrong solution to a valid problem. The petitioners, including non-government organisation (NGO) Association for Democratic Reforms, have asked the court to declare political parties “public authority” under the RTI Act, 2005. This reflects a misreading of the objective of this law, which was to enhance transparency and accountability in government to check corruption and maximise the spirit of democratic governance. The premise is that citizens pay tax, so they have the right to know how their money is being used. A public authority under the Act is defined as any authority, body, or institution of the government established under the Constitution, by a law made by Parliament or state legislatures, or by a notification of the Centre or a state. A political party does not fulfil these conditions either by the letter or the spirit of the law. True, political parties are “public” in that they interact with the Indian public with the objective of holding public office. This position cannot be interpreted as a statutory one. Political parties are formed voluntarily, as is the Indian public’s engagement with them.

 
The petitioners have argued that political parties obtain state concessions that warrant RTI coverage. These concessions cover the allotment of official bungalows, income-tax exemptions for donations to political parties, and free airtime on national broadcasters. The concessions are broadly real and substantial, but they are extended at the discretion of the government of the day. Therefore, the RTI Act could be deployed to question the government on the extent of taxpayer money being given to subsidise political parties. Besides, the argument could well be leveraged to extend such scrutiny to all bodies that receive government subsidies — from NGOs to private corporations. Also, since political competition is the essence of a democratic exercise, it would be prejudicial to the interests of political parties if internal discussions on strategy or candidate selection were open to public scrutiny, and the voting public had the freedom to accept or reject a candidate. In any case, the audited accounts of all major political parties are available on the Election Commission website and the list of donors on party websites, and public affidavits are there to declare the assets and criminal cases against candidates standing for election.

 
The principal public discomfiture that may have prompted a petition seeking greater transparency lies in the need to follow the money to gauge the relation between public policy and large donors, disclosures that are easy to track in advanced democracies such as the US. In September last year, the Election Commission highlighted this shortcoming by suggesting that the cut-off for anonymous political donations be lowered from the current Rs 20,000 to Rs 2,000. Perhaps the bigger source of mistrust lies in electoral bonds, where anonymity is hardwired into the procedure and for which there is an extremely strong case for greater disclosure, not just for greater accountability, but also to track money laundering. Bringing political parties under the RTI Act is unlikely to change this position.