Jagdeep Chhokar, founder member of Association for Democratic Reforms, explained to Firstpost the implications of the CIC ruling bringing political parties under the Right to Information Act.

Six national political parties are anything but excited about Monday’s ruling by the Central Information Commission (CIC) bringing them under the ambit of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. While the Congress party has rejected the order saying it will damage democratic institutions, the BJP feels the Election Commission should take a call on the issue. During the hearing of the matter, the CIC was convinced by the argument that political parties are substantially financed by the government and have a crucial role in the functioning of the government.

Jagdeep Chhokar, founder member of Association for Democratic Reforms and aide to Anil Bairwal, one of the litigants in the matter, explained to Firstpost the implications of the CIC ruling and why political parties should welcome the order rather than rejecting it.

With political parties coming under the ambit of RTI Act, what information related to these parties can we expect to find in the public domain?

There are many pieces of information abut the functioning of political parties which are crucial, but are not available in public domain. For example, what are their sources of funding, what is the criteria for selecting candidates, do the parties know that a candidate applying for a party ticket has criminal cases against him, how much do the parties spend on election campaigning? Currently, the management of our political parties is like a black box. Nobody knows how decisions are made. And those decisions affect the working of the nation, our foreign policy, economic policy and our day-to-day lives. We need to know how those decisions are being made. Political parties need to realise that they are not above the law.

One of the criticisms of the CIC ruling is that it is not legally tenable. What do you think?

I am absolutely certain that it is tenable. RTI Act applies to public authorities, as defined in the Act. The argument given by political parties is that since they are not constituted by the government, they are not public authorities and hence, they do not come under the purview of the RTI Act. But in its order, the CIC noted that even a private body can be a public authority and covered under the Act, if it is substantially funded by the government. The Commission quoted various court rulings in this regard.

One of the Left Parties has said that political parties will use the RTI Act to obtain information about rival parties. Your reaction?

If the contention is that RTI covering political parties will destroy the political system, then your understanding of political system is limited. RTI Act is in existence for more than seven years now, but no institution in the country has collapsed under the weight of this Act. Secondly, political parties aren't the sole authority about their functioning. We, the people, also have a say in country’s politics. Even we are into politics, not electoral politics though. Therefore, if not coming under RTI is the intention of political parties, then, bringing them under the Transparency Act is our wish. To finish or destroy political parties is not our aim. We are just working to enhance transparency and accountability in political parties.

Do you foresee political parties challenging the CIC ruling in High Court?

If they approach the court, we will fight it out in the court. We have already filed a caveat in the Delhi High Court saying that if anyone moves court in this matter, the court should not hear the matter or pass an ex-parte order without informing us. In fact, it will expose the political parties which are against transparency as only such parties will move court.

Various public authorities have devised different ways of stonewalling information, such as increasing application fees and rejecting the RTI applications, saying that it does not serve any public interest. You think political parties will also try to curtail information on flimsy grounds?

Certainly, they will try, but that is the game. One has to continue at it. It not passing of the law that is important, it is implementation of the law.

In the context of transparency, the ideal situation is one where everything about the functioning of political parties is in public domain. How significant you think this order is in that direction?

We are not aiming for the ideal. We are aiming for some improvement. Today, things are totally unacceptable. There can never be 100 per cent transparency. Corruption can never be 100 per cent eradicated. It is a cultural issue. But we want things to reach to an acceptable level.

Your organisation, ADR, worked on bringing in public domain the criminal and educational background of candidates fighting elections. You are working on voluntary disclosure of tax returns by parliamentarians. You have won the battle to bring political parties under RTI. What next?

There are no targets. Our purpose is to improve democracy and governance in the country. It is a journey. There is no destination. We have to continuously seek improvement. That is why I said we are not aiming for any ideal stage. What may sound very good, today, may not sound good three years or ten years from now. As of now, we are trying to bring internal democracy in political parties and trying to increase financial transparency. Nothing is going to happen overnight. It will come with time.

Every time the civil society talks about transparency in government offices, it is said that the non-government organisations (NGOs) should also be covered under RTI. Do you agree?

The definition of a public authority is present in the RTI Act. Any office or organization which falls under that definition should be covered under the RTI Act, including NGOs.