Friends,
Please see following link for the landmark decision of the CIC, announced today:
http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SM_C_2011_001386_M_111222.pdf
Final decision is given below, for ready reference. Political parties are "public authorities" as defined in section 2(h) of the RTI Act. Accordingly disclosure and dissemination of information under section 4 of RTI Act is their legal obligation.
CIC order mentions only section 4(1)(b) and there is need for sustained public pressure to ensure that entire obligations of public authorities are fulfilled by the political parties in letter and spirit. Political parties are expected to have high degree of probity, transparency and public accountability, setting an example for public administratiuon system.
Dhirendra Krishna
" 90. The arguments of Shri Tiwari cannot be accepted by us in the light of statutory provisions and the case law referred to hereinabove and they have to be rejected. We may further add that his contention that NCP has received less than 1.55% of its total funding from the Government also cannot be accepted by us as he has not produced any figures before us to substantiate this claim. Further, assuming that these figures are true, this contention is liable to be rejected on the ground that NCP, being a Political Party, performs public functions, which along with other reasons mentioned above, qualifies it to be Public Authority under section 2(h).
91. Yet another contention of Shri Tiwari is that if Political Parties are held to be Public
Authorities, then the political rivals would maliciously flood their CPIOs with numerous RTI applications at the time of elections thereby wasting their time and energy and, thus, causing detriment to their political functioning. In our view, the validity of a statute cannot be questioned only on the basis of presumption of its possible misuse. On the contrary, we are of the opinion that bringing the Political Parties in the ambit of RTI Act is likely to usher an era of transparency in their functioning. Besides it would result in strengthening of democracy and democratice institutions in the country. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the submissions of Adv. Tiwari and reject the same.
92. In view of the above discussion, we hold that INC, BJP, CPI(M), CPIO, 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). The constitutional and legal provisions discussed herein above also point towards their character as public authorities. The order of the Single Bench of this Commission in Complaint No. CIC/MISC/2009/0001 and CIC/MISC/2009/0002 is hereby set aside and it is held that AICC/INC, BJP, CPI(M), CPI, NCP and BSP are public authorities under section 2(h) of the RTI Act.
93. The Presidents, General/Secretaries of these Political Parties are hereby directed to
designate CPIOs and the Appellate Authorities at their headquarters in 06 weeks time. The CPIOs so appointed will respond to the RTI applications extracted in this order in 04 weeks time. Besides, the Presidents/General Secretaries of the above mentioned Political Parties are also directed to comply with the provisions of section 4(1) (b) of the RTI Act by way of making voluntary disclosures on the subjects mentioned in the said clause."
| Reply via web post | Reply to sender | Reply to group | Start a New Topic | Messages in this topic (1) |
No comments:
Post a Comment