Dear all,

The Indian government has signalled its intention to amend the Right to
Information Act, 2005, in order to ensure that political parties do not
fall under its purview.

Earlier reports had suggested that the government may seek to promulgate an
ordinance amending Section 8 of the Act (exemptions) in order to counter
the Central Information Commission’s 3rd June order which stated that as
they are “substantially financed” by the central government, political
parties are public authorities under Section 2(h) of the Act. Others had
expected the government to challenge the order by filing a writ petition in
the High Court.

Sources have stated however that the Department of Personnel and Training
(DoPT), the nodal agency responsible for the implementation of the Act at
the central level, has prepared a cabinet note and will seek cabinet
approval within the week. The proposed amendments have reportedly been
cleared by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh who is concurrently the
minister-in-charge of the DoPT. The Cabinet note will include a validation
clause giving it retroactive effect from the date of the original CIC
decision.

It is likely that the government will place an amendment bill before
parliament in the forthcoming monsoon session. Both the CIC decision and
the government’s various efforts to counter it have led to a rare display
of unity among India’s major political parties who are keen to keep
themselves insulated from the purview of the Act.

At the same time, opinion among RTI activists has been divided, with some
arguing that though there is a clear need for greater transparency in the
workings and finances of political parties, the task falls to the Election
Commission of India and not the Central Information Commission. Others have
argued that the decision has taken a functional rather than institutional
definition of public authorities and is thus, in the long run, as much of a
threat to civil society as it is to political parties. Many have expressed
concern that the decision will provide political cover for drastic,
regressive amendments to the Act. In an attempt to redefine ‘public
authority’ under Section 2 of the Act, many are concerned that the
government may repeal Sections 2(h)i and ii altogether, which would
effectively remove public-private partnerships (PPPs) from the ambit of the
Act.

A group of eminent citizens, including former Delhi High Court Chief
Justice AP Shah, former Cabinet Secretary TSR Subramanian, former CIC
Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi and CHRI's RTI Coordinator Venkatesh Nayak,
have written to parliamentarians expressing their opposition to amending
the RTI Act.

 “There are reports in the media that a Bill is likely to be presented in
Parliament to amend the RTI Act. The reasons being given publicly are that
the CIC order declaring political parties, as public authorities, subject
to RTI is bad in law.” As far as this is true, the letter went on to argue
that “the CIC order can be challenged in a writ petition in the High
Court,” adding that there had been many prior instances of “these orders
having been quashed in courts.” The letter argued that as none of the
parties had filed for a stay, they have demonstrated that they simply
“expect to amend the law in Parliament to justify and legitimise their
defiance of a statutory order.”

The letter went on to defend the role that the RTI Act has played in
uncovering corruption and instances of bad governance. “The key principle
in defining the bodies to be covered by the RTI Act was based on the
movement’s slogan, hamara paisa, hamara hisab. Hence all government bodies
were covered by the RTI Act and also other institutions which may be
‘substantially funded’ by the government were covered.”

Arguing that the RTI Act never damaged any institution, the letter said:
“Some political representatives have claimed that they would not like to be
questioned about their processes of decision making. RTI only gives access
to citizens to the records of a public authority, and does not entitle the
citizen to question the merits of the decisions.”

The full text of the letter can be read here: http://goo.gl/TByYfj
<http://goo.gl/TByYfj>

Best,

*Satbir*

*
*

*
*

*Satbir Singh*
*Access to Information Programme
(South Asia & Africa)**
Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative

*B-117 Sarvodaya Enclave, New Delhi-27

*Phone*:  +91 (0) 8527232802
*Mail*:     sat...@humanrightsinitiative.org
*Web*:    www.humanrightsinitiative.org
*Tweet*:  twitter.com/satbirlsingh <http://www.twitter.com/satbirlsingh>
            twitter.com/chri_int <http://www.twitter.com/chri_int>
            twitter.com/networksartian<http://www.twitter.com/networksartian>

*"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary
act."  **(George Orwell)*

For more on Access to Information in South Asia, visit: www.sartian.org

*The Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative is an international NGO with a
mandate from the Commonwealth of Nations and consultative status at the
United Nations, working toward the practical realisation of human rights in
the countries of the Commonwealth.*

Reply via email to