Narayanasamy’s definition of Substantial funding – One more threat for RTI ahead

If accepted,union minister of state for personnel public grievances and pensions V. Narayanasamy’s definition " Substantial funding means above 51 per cent’ "private sharks will grab the entire country in no time. All the Build Operate Transfer (BOT), Public Private Partnership (PPP) projects, Non Government Organisations (NGO) getting crores of rupees as a fund or aid in kind Co Operative societies, will automatically come out of the preview of RTI act.

There are 33.50 lakh NGO’s and around 6.5 lakh cooperative societies working since last decades for welfare of society in India. That means there are around 40 lakh organisation working for 120 crore population, i.e. there is one such organisation per 300 people. If we assume there are only 10 members in such organisations i.e. there is one person per 30 people working for welfare of society since last many decades. Major Job of these organisations is to take government policies, schemes to common person. However what we see the ground reality is, status of the common person is same as was several decades back. Each year government spends crores and crores rupees for welfare of common person , then where did all this money go?. Interesting part of this is , most of all these are directly or indirectly owned or controlled by political entities.  

There are projects like BOT, PPP where government’s major stake is involved in form of direct or indirect funding. In addition as the government has already allowed Foreign Direct Investment (FDI). We have to see the implications of definition of substantial funding keeping in the mind above mentioned factors .

I wonder how anybody can say that “I have taken your rupee but as my stakes are high, I don’t owe any responsibility towards your rupee because it is not substantial funding”.?. Definition of substantial funding can not be and should not be in terms percentage.

Cabinet today cleared the RTI Amendments

In a significant development, the Cabinet today cleared the RTI Amendment Act and proposed that political parties should be kept out of its ambit. But following was the press release by press information bureau on 8 july 2009., when Prithviraj Chavan was Minister of State in the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions. It seems that assurance given by then state minister was  just a eyewash.

Amendment to RTI Act

Lok Sasbha

The Government proposes to strengthen right to information by suitably amending the laws to provide for disclosure by government in all non-strategic areas. In this regard, it is proposed to review the number of organizations in the second schedule to the Right to Information Act, 2005 and make rules for more disclosure of information by public authorities.

Government has received representations expressing doubts about the proposed amendments. Non-Governmental Organisations and Social activists will be consulted on the proposed amendments. However No time frame can be fixed for completion of the process.

This information was given by the Minister of State in the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Shri Prithviraj Chavan in a written reply to a question in Lok Sabha today (i.e. 8th july 2009 )

Dear Members of Parliament, do not vote for any amendments to the RTI Act please.

Dear Member of Parliament,

I am writing this piece to you to voice my concern about a matter that is very important to me. 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. My understanding is that if an order, which is bad in law, is issued by any statutory authority, the correct process is to challenge it at an appropriate forum. The CIC order can be challenged in a writ in the High Court, and there are many instances of these orders having been quashed in Courts. None of the political parties has filed for a stay of this order, and now expects to amend the law in Parliament to justify and legitimize their defiance of a statutory order. With folded hands, I plead with you not to vote for this. Parliament makes the law. Once it is made, it has to be adjudicated by the appropriate statutory authorities. This is the Constitutional process. Defying a statutory order by anyone sets a wrong example, and leads to breakdown of the rule of law. After considerable discussion spread over months, and reference to a Parliamentary Committee this law was passed. It has been rated as the second best law in the World. Citizens cherish and value it immensely, since it codifies a very important fundamental right of ours.

The law has been used extensively and has uncovered certain arbitrariness and corruption. More importantly, it has empowered the individual sovereign citizen, who is today getting greater respect from many entities. 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 other Institutions which may be ‘substantially funded’ by Government were covered. This was the Act passed by Parliament, based on which the CIC has passed an order. I do concede that there is some reasonable scope for a different opinion on what constitutes ‘substantial funding’ and if the political parties feel that the CIC decision is flawed, they could challenge it in Court. Parties have said that they are being monitored by the Election Commission and the Income Tax department, and hence they need not provide information to Citizens. All Institutions including Parliament are legitimized to be intermediaries on behalf of ‘We the People’. None of these can replace the people of India.

Some worries have been voiced about how the political parties will be able to cope with the RTI queries. I might point out that many small NGOs and aided schools are complying with RTI without a major stress.

Subjecting themselves to Right to Information by citizens has not damaged any Institution in the Country. 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. Besides there are ten exemptions in Section 8 (1) for information that need not be disclosed and these exemptions passed by Parliament have worked well, and not resulted in damaging any Institution since 2005. There is some recognition in most quarters that it is slowly leading to getting some corrections and improvements in Institutions and strengthening the hands of those who work in the spirit of Public service and probity.

It is true that there is a trust deficit between citizens and political leaders. RTI will overcome this, and lead to a better understanding of the working of various political parties. It will lead to citizens making a more informed choice of political parties during elections. Besides, it will promote better and systematic functioning of the political parties, once they subject themselves to monitoring by the people they seek to serve. I am sure you are concerned with the decline in the levels of probity in public service. This is an opportunity to reverse this and start the journey towards a more meaningful service of people. I am sure you are as concerned with the future of politics and your party in a decade from now, as I am. Let us work together for a better political democracy with a long-term vision for a better India. Please do not vote for any amendments to the RTI Act. If your party is not going to vote for amendments to the RTI Act, please state this publicly.

Regards

Vijay Kumbhar

Why political parties did change their stand on RTI and Transparency?

After central information commissions (CIC) decision on Right to Information (RTI), regarding applicability of it to political parties all the parties' unanimously opposed the decision.Interestingle parties' earlier singing song of transparency and accountability suddenly changed their tune. Many of them were scared of disclosure of names of donors. Actually though direct or indirect funding was important factor in bringing political parties under ambit of RTI. To me major role is played in this decision by preamble of constitution of India and preamble of RTI.

Para 86 of this decision says "We may also add that the preamble to the Constitution of India aims at securing to all its citizens: JUSTICE, social, economic and political; LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; and, EQUALITY of status and of opportunity. Coincidentally, the preamble of RTI Act also aims to promote these principles in the form of transparency and accountability in the working of the every public authority. It also aims to create an ‘informed citizenry’, to contain corruption, and to hold government and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed. Political Parties are important political institutions and can play a critical role in heralding transparency in public life. Political Parties continuously perform public functions which define parameters of governance and socio-economic development in the country." moreover, it was also said that the Political Parties are the building blocks of a constitutional democracy.

It seems that political parties were confused while dealing with this case. I guess there was very much importance to argument on confidentiality, transparency, and public interest in this case .It was difficult for political parties to openly defend confidentiality, and with this obligation, they were helpless and unable to oppose transparency and public interest. In addition, Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) and Communist Party of India (CPI) had almost replied to application under section 6 of RTI.

Chandan Bose, PRO, Nationalist Congress Party, in his letter dated 27th November 2010, had informed the complainant “It is very important to mention here that NCP is a non-government organization. Hence, we do not have much more resources nor surplus staff to expedite unusual work, However, I would like to inform you that ours is a National Party duly recognized by Election Commission of India and that from the day of inception of our party, we have been regularly filing our returns to the Income Tax authorities and also to the Election Commission of India along with whatever voluntary contributions received. It is pertinent to mention here that our all obligation towards authorities are up to date. If you feel like, you may collect all the information you desired, from the above said authorities." In other words NCP had agreed that even though it is non - governed organisation it is covered under section 2 (h) (d) (ii) of RTI.

CPI had earlier replied and provided names of top 10 donors to applicant and On the other hand,  A.B. Bardhan, General Secretary, CPI, in letter dated 21.3.2011addressed to applicant  Anil Bairwal has stated that CPI is a Public Authority under section 2(h) of the RTI Act. The relevant portion of his letter is extracted below :- “(a) Yes, we are Public Authority under section 2(h)(d)(ii) “non-government organizations” substantially financed, directly or indirectly, by funds provided by the appropriate Government. In addition (b), we have our internal Appellate Authority “Central Control Commission.”

Later on all the parties including NCP and CPI changed their stand in CIC. Why this happened?. why political parties are scared of disclosing their funding? As per Transparency International, Money may come into conflict with the democratic principles of civic equality and fair competition in elections and can undermine political representation.

For example

1) When the availability of resources becomes a decisive factor in winning elections instead of candidate proposals.

2)When money contributed to electoral campaigns safeguards private interests and inhibits political parties and candidates representing collective interests to communicate their ideas.

3) When a party in office uses the system and the resources of the State for the benefit of the electoral campaigns of its candidates.

4) When companies contribute to electoral campaigns in exchange for future favours from elected representatives.

5)When illegal groups, such as organized crime, drug-trafficking or other armed groups, support candidates who in performing their duties will represent illegal interests.

6) When resources used to fund electoral campaigns are raised individually by candidates and not by their parties, thereby creating the risk of personal commitment on the part of the candidate to the donor.

7) When candidates use financial resources for inappropriate purposes, such as vote purchasing or other forms of unfair competition.

8) When elected representatives have, in general, a greater commitment to donors than to the public.

9) When representatives use their post and attendant government resources to gain re-election.

10) When civic equality, reflected in the principle of each individual having one vote, is undermined by the unwarranted ability of some to contribute money to politics.

These conflicts affect the legitimacy of elected representatives as well as their ability to develop rules aimed to benefit the public. The negative impact of such on the quality of life of the people multiplies and the democratic system as a whole stands to lose credibility.

Shining a light on political financing is the best way to clean house. When parties and candidates disclose information about funds used to finance their activities, both during electoral campaigns and generally, scrutiny of illegal funds and influence peddling in politics is facilitated.

All politicians as well as the parties and groups that support them are either legally or morally required to report to the public. The accuracy and usefulness of reports will increase to the extent that they are fully disclosed to the public and to the media. Reports should be clear, complete, presented on time and reliable.

However, this is not happening in India only. Since last few years, many countries worldwide are trying bring legislation on political funding and expenditure. Many developed countries already have such legislations and control over funding and expenses of political parties and they make them public.