We talk of social accountability and inclusive democracy through well informed participation; we

vouch for facilitating the ideals of transparency and inclusiveness. And yet we dont pass the Jan Lok
Pal bill, instead we make provisions for curtailing the scope of an existing Act by putting across the
Right to Information (Amendment) bill with a pace rarely seen otherwise, despite innumerable
oppositions. The article attempts to look into the RTI amendment bill introduced in parliament and
its implication for the high ideal of inclusive democracy and social accountability which perhaps are
the latest and trendiest of all political slogans. Before bringing forward a discussion on the
implications of the proposed bill, an understanding of the broader concept of social accountability
will be important which is considered as a good governance mechanism to ensure inclusive
democracy.

Worldwide there is increasing recognition that citizens involvement is imperative for enhancing
democratic governance, improving service delivery, and fostering empowerment. "Demand for Good
Governance" refers to the ability of citizens, civil society organisations and other non-state actors to
hold the state accountable and make it responsive to their needs thereby highlighting the importance
of social accountability in this context. UNDP defines social accountability as, a form of
accountability which emerges from actions by citizens and civil society organisation (CSOs) aimed at
holding the state to account, as well as efforts by government and other actors (media, private sector,
donors) to support these actions. Thus, social accountability has the potential for ensuring a more
relevant policy process, increased transparency and ultimately good governance. To enhance social
accountability, there are various mechanisms and tools; for example, strengthening access to
information, strengthening independent media, or using specific tools, such as citizen report cards or
citizen juries. However it is ironical that though efforts have been taken recently to promote social
accountability, simultaneously the existing mechanisms are being weakened.
Access to information is indeed one of the powerful tools of social accountability which has been
achieved after much deliberation and over the past few years there has been a relentless effort
towards recognising the right to information as a fundamental human right for people in south Asia.
In most countries, a right to/freedom of information legislation has come as a significant and hardwon entitlement. Though there is still scope for improvement with regard to the impediments that
these countries are facing at each stage of implementation of the right to information law, there are
plenty of examples on how the use this law has improved livelihoods by providing much needed
information on entitlements, safety net programmes, allocation to local governments and so on. It
has enabled the citizens to become an active participant in discourses and praxis of governance, thus
reiterating the role of information as a critical tenet of participatory democracy.
In India, after much deliberation, the RTI Act was passed on June 15, 2005, and came fully into force
on October 12 that year to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in
order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority. The RTI
Act well acknowledges the fact that democracy requires an informed citizenry and transparency of
information which are vital to its functioning and also to check corruption. Further to hold the state
accountable to the governed and as revelation of information in actual practice is likely to conflict
with other public interest including efficient operations of the governments, optimum use of limited
fiscal resources and the preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information; it is necessary to

harmonise these conflicting interests while preserving the importance of the democratic ideal; and
therefore it is expedient to provide for furnishing certain information to citizens who desire to have
it.
This Act, despite certain flaws in its implementation, is one of the effective mechanisms of
empowerment which when used leads to well-informed choices and perhaps a step closer to
participatory democracy. Rather than strengthening the ways of its effective implementation, to the
utter dismay of many, the amendment bill was introduced on August 12. This bill came as a response
to the central information commissions (CIC) ruling bringing political parties under the ambit of the
RTI.
In the landmark judgment, dated June 3, the full CIC bench comprising chief information
commission Satyananda Mishra, information commissioners ML Sharma and Annapurna Dixit
ruled, We hold that INC, BJP, CPI(M), CPI, NCP and BSP have been substantially financed by the
Central Government under section 2(h)(ii) of the RTI Act. 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).
In this context it would be imperative to know in detail the definition of public authority under the
RTI Act. Under Section 2(h), public authority means any authority or body or institution of selfgovernment 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 Legislature; or
(d) by notification issued or made by the appropriate Government.
It 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.
Thus the judgment further mentions, The constitutional and legal provisions discussed herein above
also point towards their character as public authorities. This judgment was critically received by the
political parties which unanimously put forward their opposition on it and dismissed it as a very
flexible interpretation of the section. The amendment bill is aimed at redefining public authority or
institution so that political parties such as the Congress, BJP, BSP, NCP, CPI and CPM are not
defined as public authorities under the transparency law and are free from the clutches of the RTI
Act.
The bill tabled in the Lok Sabha proposes an amendment to Section 2 of the RTI Act. It states that in
section 2 of the Act, in clause (h), the following Explanation shall be inserted which states that
authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted by any law made by
Parliament shall not include any association or body of individuals registered or recognised as
political party under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
The bill also mentions that after section 31 of the principal Act, the following section (i.e. section 32)
shall be inserted which states thatNot withstanding anything contained in any judgment, decree or
order of any court or commission, the provisions of this Act, as amended by the Right to Information
(Amendment) Act, 2013, shall have effect and shall be deemed always to have effect, in the case of

any association or body of individuals registered or recognised as political party under the
Representation of the People Act, 1951 or any other law for the time being in force and the rules
made or notifications issued there under.
The amendment bill if passed will only dilute the power of RTI and is an undesirable move. It is
indeed one of those exceptional, mutually benefitting situations where political parties enter into a
symbiotic relationship and put forward their unity which is rare to find in many other relevant
matters. In such a situation the progress of such initiations is smooth and rapid. Though various
parties have different reasons for opposing the CICs June 3 ruling, the parties have banded together
to keep themselves entirely out of the purview of the RTI Act, the common underlying theme is that
functioning of political parties in a democracy cannot be equated with government and other staterun institutions. The diverse parties common argument to stay out of the ambit of the RTI law is that
information is regularly supplied to the election commission and income-tax authorities and those
wanting details about their income and expenditure can take them from the EC and I-T authorities.
Despite all the excuses coming from different political parties one cannot do away with the fact that
the move to create a special exemption for political parties from the transparency law of the country
violates the very principle of equality. The citizens do have the right to know about political parties
which run on money donated by the public. So, the amendment is unconstitutional and cannot be
taken without discussing it with the public and taking its consent. This amendment is nowhere near
to any form of good governance that political parties preach.
Moreover, the bill aims at nullifying the CICs order declaring six political parties as public
authorities which is undesirable. As per the mandates of the bill whenever the act takes final shape
it will have retrospective effect from June 3 (date on which CIC gave the verdict). This reflects the
extent to which the political parties want to safeguard their secrecy and made it clear that RTI
inquires cannot be sought even within the gap between the CICs verdict and the passing of the bill (if
so).
Despite the unity of all the political parties in this matter, the civil society through its various
mechanisms is trying to reach to the public to voice against such an initiative which shall curtail their
freedom in seeking information related to political parties which perhaps is most important in a time
where certain politicians have attained a new identity by their infamous association with several
scams. Keeping the political parties out of the ambit will promote secrecy and not transparency
which goes against the spirit of RTI Act.
A massive awareness programme has been launched through newspapers and social networking
websites to protest against the bill. The National Campaign for People's Right to Information
(NCPRI) has demanded that the bill be subject to public consultation and debate, as assured by the
government in parliament in 2009. At the very minimum, the bill must be referred to a
parliamentary standing committee in order to provide a platform for people to put forth their point
of view. They are strongly against the arbitrary introduction of this bill without taking peoples
consent. MPs should represent the voice of people; however this bill represents the dissent of people
and not consent.
In a situation where the political parties had objections to the CIC order, ideally, the appropriate
response would have been to challenge the order in court. In the past, the government and other
organisations have often challenged CIC judgments in the court. However, rather than resorting to

such mechanisms, the introduction of the bill is highly questionable. This only goes to show that
when political parties themselves are subject to the transparency law, they are willing to go to the
extent of amending this landmark legislation to ensure that they are not open to public scrutiny
under the Act. And this unity appears to have provided the government with an opportunity to water
down the transparency law.
One should not forget that the RTI Act aims to create an informed citizenry and to curb corruption
and to hold government and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed. Needless to say,
political parties are important institutions and can play a critical role in heralding transparency in
public life and insulating them from RTI goes against the very definition of the Act. In a country
when we want to promote social accountability, efforts should be made to come up with more
innovative tools to ensure it rather than devising ingenious techniques to ensure a Right and then
limit it by doing away with the core ideology behind it.
To strengthen the demand side of good governance which entails strengthening the voice and
capacity of citizens to directly demand greater accountability and responsiveness from public
officials and service providers, political parties should not be shielded but should be made more
responsive, responsible and accountable. This vision will only be a blurred one if the bill is approved.
In a matter before the central information commission (CIC), six political parties were declared as
public authorities and were thus expected to appoint information officers by July 15 to reply to RTI
queries. Neither did they obey the order nor have they challenged it in a court. They flouted statutory
orders.
Is this an example the parties should be setting for the nation? They say CICs interpretation of the
law is wrong. If they think so, there is a process to challenge the order by filing a writ in a high court.
If they are not happy with the high courts order they can go to the supreme court. To say that
because I dont like an order, I am going to change the law seems to imply that you believe the
order is right as the law stands but it does not suit you. The CIC has given certain orders against the
supreme court, and even the apex court challenged the same in a high court.
The fact is, even a small NGO or a school that has received '50 lakh or '1 crore in grant from the
government has to open itself to RTI queries. How can political parties that receive financial help in
various ways from the government be exempt from RTI then?
The parties contend that if the RTI Act applies to them, they will be flooded by so many queries that
they will never be able to function. But in the eight years since its inception, this law has been applied
to various aided institutions and NGOs apart from the army, police and a whole range of government
departments. Have we heard of any institution whose work was affected because of RTI queries?
What is then so unique about a political party?
Another objection raised by the parties is that people will come up with questions like why and how
this or that candidate was selected. That cannot happen. People will only inquire about the process
followed. If you have a written process, declare it. If you dont have it, say so. RTI seeks only what is
on record.

The parties also argue that they are already answerable to the election commission (EC) and income
tax (I-T) department, so they need not be made answerable to the people. Thats a faade. The fact is
that the parties relationship with EC and I-T department is very comfortable and convenient. If the
EC was doing its job of regulating these parties, so many of them would have been deregistered. The
I-T department, too, could have acted against most political parties but we have never heard of it.
So, if this is not happening, is it all clean or just a marriage of convenience?
We would like to ask our political leaders: do they want to improve their organisations or not? If they
want a better political system, they should be willing to accept transparency. If they dont want
transparency, it means they are not willing to struggle for a better India. Is this what our prime
minister and the leaders of opposition really believe? I am not talking of the Raja Bhaiyas of the
world. If the PM was serious, he should have told the cabinet, This amendment will not happen.
Transparency builds trust in institutions over a period of time. Today, political parties by and large
are held very poorly in public perception. RTI will be instrumental in improving these organisations
by exposing the wrongdoers.
For a moment lets assume that parties and leaders have a different vision and think people like me
are small guys who dont understand that. But in a democracy should any changes in law,
particularly those that affect citizens fundamental rights, be altered surreptitiously, or should it be
through an open forum? Even today none of us in this country know what amendments to RTI were
initially proposed in 2006 and are to be applied now.
The least they could do is disclose those amendments, give a chance to citizens to voice their views,
take one or two months and then amend if required. Instead, the political parties appear to bring it
before parliament and pass it stealthily.
RTI is one of the major achievements of the UPA government. Now they are scuttling their best
achievement. History will not judge them kindly.
- See more at: http://www.governancenow.com/views/columns/why-are-politicians-shying-away-rtiact#sthash.jkPa6nYP.dpuf

At the time of its inception in 2005, the Right to Information Act generated high hopes and was
rightly called the second independence of sorts for the people. Now that this powerful weapon is
aimed at the political parties, to make them accountable and transparent, our self-centred
politicians, cutting across party lines, have united to undo the historic verdict of the central
information commission (CIC) by a short-cut: amending the law. Such a cowardly act by our
politicians only endorses the correctness of a well-drafted CIC verdict in which no political party
could find a flaw and could not challenge it legally.
If the political parties are going to be exempt from this law, ethics demands that they return land and
bungalows allotted to them by the union and state governments at subsidised rates and lease, not to
mention other privileges like tax concessions and free airtime on All India Radio and Doordarshan
for campaign during elections.

Unusual political unanimity is always seen when similar verdicts come from the supreme court.
Parties have also opted to undo the apex courts verdicts on tainted candidates. Parties are crying
that they respect the election commission (EC) and provide it with all required details. But these
parties, and governments formed by them, never cared to respect long-pending recommendations by
EC for poll reforms, including putting the None To Vote option on electronic voting machines. Even
the EC directive seeking details of wealth and criminal records from all candidates was followed only
after a supreme court directive.
Little wonder. After all, we have a democracy which is for the politicians, by the politicians and of the
politicians!
On the subject of RTI, when an organisation is declared a public authority under the transparency
law and are thus made open to queries, there is a tendency that it would rush to courts seeking exparty stay orders. (The Board for Control of Cricket in India even succeeded in getting an ex-party
stay on CIC proceedings initiated to decide whether or not the board was a public authority under
the RTI Act!) But while the government is determined to legislate amendments to keep parties out of
the purview of the RTI Act, it has done nothing to undo such tendency.
The legislation should bring all cooperative societies, including multistate cooperative societies
(MSCS), public-private partnerships (PPP) and all national sports federations (including BCCI)
under the RTI Act. All those getting land and accommodation from governments at subsidised
lease/rate should be declared public authorities. Considering the importance of the private sector in
public life (think of telecom and banking), private companies with a specified turnover and above
should also be brought under the RTI Act.
According to a government press release of July 8, 2009, the government has assured parliament
that NGOs and social activists will be consulted before any amendment in the RTI Act. So the
amendment coming now may even be considered contempt of parliament.
When the government revised the RTI rules in 2012, registries of even central information
commissioners were given undue powers to reject on totally flimsy grounds petitions filed with them.
Registries of some newly appointed central information commissioners got printed proforma letters
with a dozen or so excuses rejecting the petitions even before getting these registered. Petitions were
returned by randomly ticking some such excuses, though some of the ticked excuses might not be
relevant in respect of returned petitions.
What is more, cognizance of such petitions was being taken three-four months after they were filed.
This means the data of pending petitions at CIC as available on its website is totally false. Moreover,
returned petitions were mailed after several months of the date of the forwarding letter, thereby
depriving the petitioner to file any modified petition in the three-month time as stipulated under the
RTI Act. However, the chief information commissioner took remedial measures when his attention
was drawn to this aspect.
Another worrying aspect is the misuse of this wonderful legislation by miscreants for fun and
publicity. There have been several occasions when fake RTI petitions were filed under my name and
address, copying my style of drafting petitions. All such fake petitions relate to personal rivalry and
are filed by insiders in the public authority to whom the queries are addressed. They keep a watch on

the movement of files on their petitions, and are not bothered if the RTI response reaches me. The
department of personnel & training (DoPT) should make it mandatory to submit some identity proof
with every petition.
RTI fees should be raised to Rs 50 uniformly to discourage frivolous petitions. (It will not affect poor
persons because persons below poverty line are already exempted from not only RTI fees but also
from copying charges.) The first 10 copied pages of documents can then be provided free. It should
also be made compulsory for public authorities to use Speed Post or registered post for all
communications relating to petitions and appeals. It will save time and cost of public authorities.
RTI stamps on the lines of revenue stamps should be issued to save operational cost of handling
postal orders, presently the most popular mode of remitting RTI fees and copying charges.