NEW DELHI: The Central Information Commission ( CIC ) order on bringing parties under RTI ambit on Tuesday divided the political class, with Congress and some others rejecting it while main opposition BJP saw nothing wrong in such a move.

A day after the CIC gave its ruling, Congress termed it as an "adventurist" approach that would harm democratic institutions.

Its view was echoed by CPM and BJP's ally JD(U), which also rejected the order passed by the quasi-judicial body.

"It is not acceptable. We totally disagree with it. Such an adventurist approach will create lot of harm and damage to democratic institutions," AICC general secretary Janardan Dwivedi told reporters here.

"Getting political parties entangled in such unnecessary things will damage the democratic process. We simply cannot accept it," he said.

The CPM, in a statement, said it "cannot accept" the CIC order that political parties are to be treated as "public authorities" and brought under the purview of the Right to Information Act.

"This decision is based on a fundamental misconception about the role of political parties in a parliamentary democracy," it said, adding "This will interfere with and hamper the functioning of a political party."

Expressing "astonishment and shock", JD(U) chief Sharad Yadav said the order was "no way justified" as "political parties are not shops".

Asserting that "we are totally against this move", he wanted the central government to scuttle the CIC move.

BJP, however, felt nothing wrong in the CIC order. "BJP is not against anything that brings transparency and accountability which is equally applicable to all. We will follow the law," said BJP spokesman Capt Abhimanyu.

The CIC held that six national parties -- Congress, BJP, NCP, CPM, CPI and BSP -- have been substantially funded indirectly by the central government and they have the character of public authority under the RTI Act as they perform public functions.

RTI is one of the historic measures of the Congress-led UPA government in its first term, introduced at the behest of Sonia Gandhi for greater transparency and accountability in government and government-funded bodies.

Congress leader Dwivedi suggested that the CIC move would encroach upon the right to privacy of political organisations which don't receive any grants from the government and are voluntary organisations.

Underlining that political parties are the mainstay of democracy which "cannot and should not be weakened", he cautioned that such decisions would have long-lasting implications.

CPM felt that opponents of a political party can utilise the RTI as an instrument to destabilise a party.

"Given the serious implications of this order of the CIC for the political party system and parliamentary democracy, the matter should be discussed by the government with all political parties so that suitable steps can be taken to preserve the integrity and the role of political parties in a democratic political system," it said.

It termed as "untrue" the CIC observation that "six national parties are substantially financed by the central government and therefore they are held to be public authorities under the Act".

The party said "the bulk of the funding and finances for the parties do not come from the government or any State institution. In fact, the CPM does not even accept funds from corporates which is legally permissible."

The CPM said one of the concerns of the CIC seems to be transparency of the funding and finances of political parties. "At present, according to the law, all political parties are required to submit their accounts to the Income Tax department and the Election Commission.

"Already under the RTI, the statement of accounts and the finances of the parties are accessible to anyone from the Election Commission. Any more details of the financing of the party can be sought for and has to be given. The CPM has from the outset taken the stand that the financial statements and accounts of a party should be publicly available.

"But this does not mean that a political party has to be treated as a public authority," the CPM said.

"To apply the Right to Information Act and demand access to the internal deliberations of the party whether it be on policy matters, organisational decisions or selection of candidates will constitute a serious infringement of the inner-party functioning, confidentiality of discussions and undermine the political party system itself," it said.

JD(U) chief Yadav wondered how it was possible for political parties to divulge information about inner matters.

"It is not practical to share resolutions of the parties, which are made in the executive committee meetings and also to share the process of selection of candidates for the party organisations," he said.

"I fail to understand the logic behind the CIC order. There is already a Constitutional body - Election Commission - to which every political party is answerable and is bound to function under its directives.

"For any small or big deficiency in the conduct of political party, that political party receives immediate notice from the EC," he said, questioning, "Does the CIC order now mean that political parties will have two bosses- the EC and the CIC?"

Yadav also questioned why the CIC is only looking at political parties and not at cricket bodies like BCCI where anomalies are happening.

He also hinted that his party will raise this issue in the Monsoon Session of Parliament.