PARLIAMENT OF INDIA RAJYA SABHA. The Right to Information (Amendment) Bill, 2013

Transcription

1 REPORT NO. 66 PARLIAMENT OF INDIA RAJYA SABHA DEPARTMENT-RELATED PARLIAMENTARY STANDING COMMITTEE ON PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES, LAW AND JUSTICE SIXTY SIXTH REPORT The Right to Information (Amendment) Bill, 2013 (Presented to the Rajya Sabha on 17th December, 2013) (Laid on the Table of Lok Sabha on 17th December, 2013) Rajya Sabha Secretariat, New Delhi December, 2013/Agrahayana, 1935 (Saka)

2 Website:

3 Hindi version of this publication is also available CS (P & L)-131 PARLIAMENT OF INDIA RAJYA SABHA DEPARTMENT-RELATED PARLIAMENTARY STANDING COMMITTEE ON PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES, LAW AND JUSTICE SIXTY SIXTH REPORT The Right to Information (Amendment) Bill, 2013 (Presented to the Rajya Sabha on 17th December, 2013) (Laid on the Table of Lok Sabha on 17th December, 2013) Rajya Sabha Secretariat, New Delhi December, 2013/Agrahayana, 1935 (Saka)

4

5 CONTENTS PAGES 1. COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE... (i)-(ii) 2. INTRODUCTION... (iii)-(iv) 3. ACRONYMS... (v) 4. REPORT MINUTES OF DISSENT RELEVANT MINUTES OF THE MEETINGS OF THE COMMITTEE ANNEXURES A. The Right to Information (Amendment) Bill, B. Comments of the Department of Personnel and Training on the views/suggestions contained in Memoranda Submitted by Individuals/Organisations/Experts on the Provisions of the Bill C. List of Persons Heard by the Committee at Delhi and during its study visit D. List of Reports Presented by the Committee

6

7 1. Shri Shantaram Naik Chairman RAJYA SABHA 2. Ms. Anu Aga 3. Shri Ram Jethmalani 4. Shri Sanjiv Kumar 5. Shri Parimal Nathwani 6. Shri Ram Vilas Paswan 7. Shri Sukhendu Sekhar Roy 8. Shri Ramchandra Prasad Singh 9. Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi 10. Shri Bhupender Yadav LOK SABHA 11. Maulana Badruddin Ajmal 12. Shri T. R. Baalu 13. Shri E.T. Mohammed Basheer 14. Shri N.S.V. Chitthan 15. Shri P.C. Gaddigoudar 16. Shri D.B. Chandre Gowda 17. Shri Shailendra Kumar 18. Shri Jitender Singh Malik 19. Shri Arjun Meghwal 20. Shri Pinaki Misra 21. Shri Abhijit Mukherjee 22. Shri S.S. Ramasubbu 23. Shri S. Semmalai 24. Shri S.D. Shariq 25. Shrimati Meena Singh 26. Shri Vijay Bahadur Singh 27. Dr. Prabha Kishore Taviad 28. Shri Suresh Kashinath Taware 29. Shri Madhusudan Yadav 30. Vacant 31. Vacant COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE (Constituted on 31 st August, 2013) (i)

8 (ii) SECRETARIAT Shri Alok Kumar Chatterjee, Joint Secretary Shri K.P. Singh, Director Shri Ashok K. Sahoo, Joint Director Shrimati Niangkhannem Guite, Assistant Director Shrimati Catherine John L., Assistant Director

9 INTRODUCTION I, the Chairman of the Department-related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice, having been authorised by the Committee on its behalf, do hereby present the Sixty-sixth Report on the Right to Information (Amendment) Bill, The Bill seeks to amend the Right to Information Act, (Annexure-A) 2. In pursuance of the rules relating to the Department Related Parliamentary Standing Committee, the Hon ble Chairman, Rajya Sabha referred the Bill, as introduced in the Lok Sabha on the 12 th August, 2013 and pending therein, to this Committee on the 12 th September, 2013 for examination and report. 3. Keeping in view the importance of the Bill, the Committee issued a press communiqué in national and local newspapers and dailies, to solicit views/suggestions from desirous individuals/ organisations on the provisions of the Bill. In response thereto, 39 memoranda containing suggestions were received, from various organizations/individuals/experts, by the Committee. The views/suggestions received by Committee in written memoranda alongwith comments of DoPT are at Annexure-B. 4. The Committee heard the presentation of the Secretary, Department of Personnel and Training on the provisions of the Bill in its meeting held on the 27 th September, During its Study Visit to Chennai, Mumbai and Jaipur from 3 rd to 10 th October, 2013 the Committee interacted with the representatives of various Political Parties such as Nationalist Congress Party, Indian National Congress, All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, Communist Party of India, Bharatiya Janata Party, Bahujan Samaj Party, Communist Party of India (Marxist), Shivsena, Maharashtra Nav Nirman Sena, Samajwadi Party; representatives of NGOs such as Aruna Roy, Nikhil Dey and other stakeholders on the Bill. The Committee also heard, amongst others, Shri Jagdeep Chhokar, Shri Shekhar Singh, Shri Subash Chandra Agrawal; Shri Shailesh Gandhi, former CIC; Shri Nripendra Misra, Public Interest Litigation; on the 6 th November, 2013 and Shri Nilotpal Basu, Communist Party of India (Marxist) on the 27 th November, 2013 (detailed list at Annexure-C). 5. The Committee also sought the views of all National and State Political Parties on the Bill. Nationalist Congress Party, Communist Party of India, Indian National Congress, Communist Party of India (Marxist), Desiya Murpokku Dravida Kazhagam submitted their written comments thereon. 6. While considering the Bill, the Committee took note of the following documents/information placed before it: (i) Background note on the Bill submitted by the Department of Personnel and Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions; (ii) Cabinet Note No. 1/13/2013-IR dated the 23 rd July, 2013; (iii) (iv) Views/suggestions contained in the memoranda received from various organisations/ institutions/individuals/experts on the provisions of the Bill and the comments of the Department of Personnel and Training thereon; Reply furnished by the Department of Personnel and Training to questionnaire on the Bill; Rajya Sabha Parliamentary Bulletin Part-II (No ) dated the 12 th September, (iii)

10 (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) Reply furnished by the Department of Legal Affairs to questionnaire on the Bill; Views expressed during the oral evidence tendered before the Committee by the stakeholders on the 6 th and 27 th November, 2013 and during its Study Visit; Comments furnished by various recognized Political Parties on the Bill; and (viii) Other research material/documents related to the Bill. 7. The Committee adopted the Report in its meeting held on the 13 th December, For the facility of reference and convenience, the observations and recommendations of the Committee have been printed in bold letters in the body of the Report. SHANTARAM NAIK NEW DELHI; Chairman, 13 th December, 2013 Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice

11 ACRONYMS AICC AIR BJP BSP CIC CPIO CPI(M) CPI DOPT DMDK ECI INC IT MLA MP NCP NGO RTI All India Congress Committee All India Radio Bharatiya Janata Party Bahujan Samajwadi Party Central Information Commission Central Public Information Officer Communist Party of India (Marxist) Communist Party of India Department of Personnel and Training Desiya Murpokku Dravida Kazhagam Election Commission of India Indian National Congress Information Technology Member of Legislative Assembly Member of Parliament Nationalist Congress Party Non-Governmental Organisation Right to Information (v)

12

13 1 REPORT The Right to Information (Amendment) Bill, 2013 seeks to amend the Right to Information Act, 2005 in order to nullify order of full Bench of Central Information Commission (CIC) of 3 rd June, 2013 (resting in File No. CIC/SM/C/2011/ and CIC/SM/C/2011/000838) bringing six national political parties (AICC/INC, BJP, CPI(M), CPI, NCP and BSP) under the ambit of RTI Act by making liberal interpretation of the term public authority mentioned under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. 2. The Statement of Objects and Reasons appended to the Bill mentions that the political parties are not public authorities since they are neither established nor constituted by or under the Constitution or any other law made by Parliament. They are rather registered/recognized under the Representation of People Act, 1951 and Rules/Orders made or issued thereunder. Provisions of the Representation of People Act, 1951 as well as the Income Tax Act, 1961 deal with transparency in the financial aspects relating to the parties and their candidates. Declaring political parties as public authority under the RTI Act would hamper their smooth internal functioning; party rivals may misuse the provisions of the RTI Act adversely affecting the functioning of political parties. Moreover, the objective of the said Act is not to include political parties under its ambit. Since the decision of CIC is binding upon the parties in view of Section 19(7) of the RTI Act, the Statement of Objects and Reasons has also mentioned that aforesaid amendment to keep political parties out of ambit of the RTI Act will have retrospective effect from the date of decision of CIC, i.e., 3 rd June, While passing the order the full Bench of the Central Information Commission set aside its single Bench Order of 8 th July, 2009 in complaint No. CIC/MISC/2009/0001 and CIC/MISC/2009/0002 wherein that Commission could not agree that political parties could fall within the definition of public authority as defined under Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act. 4. The CIC while arriving at its decision has primarily laid out following arguments: (i) (ii) (iii) Political parties can be said to have been constituted by their registration by Election Commission of India (ECI), a fact akin to establishment or constitution of a body or institution by an appropriate Government; Substantial (indirect) financing of political parties by the Central Government in multiple ways which includes allotment of land in Delhi and State capitals, Government accommodation/bungalow on concessional rent in prime areas of Delhi, total exemption of their donation from income tax under Section 13 A of Income Tax Act, 1961, free air time on Doordarshan and All India Radio and free electoral rolls by Election Commission; Performance of Public duties by the political parties. Being unique institution they wield controlling influence directly or indirectly on the exercise of Government power in spite of being non-governmental; and (iv) Political parties enjoy constitutional and legal rights and liabilities. 5. The CIC has inter-alia directed six national political parties to designate Central Public Information Officers (CPIO) and the Appellate Authorities at the Head Quarters within six weeks period from the date of its order. 6. The Bill proposes insertion of an explanation to Section 2(h) of the Act to exclude all political parties both recognized and registered from the ambit of public authority in relation to the RTI Act. The Department of Legal Affairs in its opinion through the reply to the questionnaire to the Committee has agreed that the ratio of the order of CIC dated the 3 rd June, 2013 may be applicable to 1444 odd

14 2 political parties including 52 national and state political parties, if criteria laid down by it is established in their case. 7. The Committee noted the justification to the proposed amendment given in the Cabinet Note No. 1/13/2013-IR dated the 23 rd July, 2013 to annul erroneous decision arrived at by CIC by liberal interpretation of the term public authority in relation to RTI Act: Registration of political parties under Section 29 A of the RP Act, 1951 with Election Commission of India cannot be construed as akin to establishment or constitution of body or institution by an appropriate Government. Misuse of the Act by political rivals with malicious intention which may adversely affect smooth functioning of political parties which is neither the object of the Act nor was envisaged by Parliament under the Act. Deposition of Secretary, DOPT 8. The Secretary, DOPT, which is nodal Ministry for the Act submitted that many Non- Governmental Organizations 1 have been declared as public authority in relation to RTI Act on the grounds of substantial financing by the appropriate Government, by the judiciary. He justified the amendment to the Act on the ground that possible political misuse of the Act by political rivals which would destabilize the political party which is not the objective of the Act. Existing provisions in the RP Act, 1951 and the Income Tax Act, 1961 ensure transparency in the financial aspects of political parties. He added that all information including financial information which are not exempted under Section 8 of the Act needed to be shared if the order of CIC is not nullified. Stand of Recognized Political Parties 9. All six national political parties expect CPI which were respondent to the CIC order of 3 rd June, 2013 were categorical in their assertion that political parties are not public authority in relation to RTI Act. The Committee sought views of all recognized national and state parties on the proposed legislation. Till date INC, NCP, CPI, CPI(M) and Desiya Murpokku Dravida Kazhagam (DMDK) have submitted their views which are in support of proposed amendment. However, the BJD through its Member in the Committee, has categorically asserted that his party firmly opposes the proposed amendment and fully supports the spirit and tenor of the CIC order. 10. By and large, the political parties are in favour of transparency in their financial matter in larger public interest, which according to them, already exists. Views of Civil Society 11. The Committee gathers from the evidence submitted to the Committee that the larger view of the civil society is in opposition to the proposed amendment to RTI Act. They are of the view that information relating to financial matter of political parties need to be shared with public as bulk financing to political parties is under Rs.20,000 which is not reported to Election Commission of India and Income Tax Authorities and is therefore unaccounted for. Some of the political parties have reportedly been in receipt of contributions from foreign sources in contravention of Section 29B of the RP Act, 1951 and corresponding provision in the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, While one Section is for transparency in functioning of political parties and sharing of information relating to selection/rejection of the candidates, election strategies, etc. in addition to information relating to financing of parties for the sake of good governance and electoral reforms, the other 1 Indian Olympic Association, Chandigarh, Lawn Tennis Association, Chandigarh Club, India International Centre, Delhi Public School, Rohini.

15 3 section is interested only with the information relating to financing of political parties. However, all of them suggested to the committee that amendment to RTI Act is unnecessary as inbuilt provisions to give exemption to the information of competitive nature is provided under Section 8 of the Act. They were of the view that the information which political parties have reasons to believe to affect its internal functioning can be sought to be exempted. All of them have requested to the Committee to recommend to Government to withdraw the Bill in larger public interest. Opinion of Attorney General 12. Attorney General for India in his deposition has offered following opinion: Proposed amendment to RTI Act excluding Political Parties from the definition of public authority may not withstand constitutional challenge as it is creating a class within a class without having any consideration to the principle of intelligible differentia having reasonable nexus with objective of the Act (promotion of transparency and accountability). Political Parties are foundation of democracy and need to be given sufficient protection from malicious and motivated application for which safeguards already exist under Section 8 of the Act. Instrumentality of Government vis-a-vis instrumentality of State 13. Representatives of some political parties submitted that political parties are neither instrumentality of Government nor funded by the Government, therefore, they cannot be treated as public authorities in relation to RTI Act. The Committee noted that preamble to the RTI Act clearly mentions that Government and its instrumentalities are accountable to the governed for the sake of transparency and accountability under RTI Act. Department of Legal Affairs in their replies to the questionnaire have stated that instrumentality or agency of the Government is not restricted to entities created under or by statute. A body upon which the Government has merely regulatory control could be instrument of Government if that body is substantially financed by the appropriate Government either by direct or indirect manner. The judgement of Supreme Court in the Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala delivered on 7 th October, 2013, may be referred to wherein even private organizations (NGOs) which are substantially financed by the appropriate Government in direct or indirect manner are also instrument of Government and public authorities in relation to RTI Act in view of Section 2(h)(ii) of the Act. All bodies having deep and pervasive control of Government are instrumentalities of State. Both instrumentalities of State and Government are public authorities in relation to RTI Act. Substantially financed by Appropriate Government 14. Department of Legal Affairs in their reply to the questionnaire have submitted to the Committee that funding from Consolidated Fund of India/State is not the sole criterion to determine whether the body is substantially financed. Even financing in indirect manner i.e. grant of plot of land at concessional rate, tax exemption are also other criteria to declare a body as instrument of Government in relation to RTI Act. 15. It is clarified to the Committee that political parties are voluntarily association of individuals. However, those cannot be construed as constituted or established under the law unless and until they are registered under the Act(s) of Parliament/State Legislature. The Department of Legal Affairs have submitted that there is no legal bar to any association of individuals without being registered with ECI to contest election. Registration with Election Commission would enable political parties to get the benefit of Part IV A of the Representation of People Act i.e. getting contribution in terms of Section 29 B of the RP Act, 1951.

16 4 16. The Committee also noted that following provisions in other existing laws ensure adequate transparency in respect of financial matters of political parties and their candidates which have been stressed as grounds for not bringing political parties under RTI Act: Declaration of contribution received in excess of Rs.20,000/- from any individual and non-governmental companies to Election Commission which that Commission put on its website (Section 29C of the RP Act, 1951, read with Rule 85B of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961). Declaration of assets and liabilities by elected candidates for a House of Parliament (Section 75A of the RP Act, 1951). Maintenance of correct account of election expenditure of the candidate (Section 77 of the RP Act, 1951). Lodging of account of election expenses by the candidate with District Election Officer (Section 78 of the RP Act, 1951). Disqualification of the candidate for failing to lodge election expenses by Election Commission (Section 10A of the RP Act, 1951). Penalty for filing false affidavit (Section 125A of the RP Act, 1951). Direction from Election Commission of India to political parties to submit their accounts within 90 days after general election in case of Lok Sabha and 75 days in case of Assembly elections (last issued on 21 st January, 2013). Inspection of accounts of candidate of political party and obtaining the same from ECI on payment of nominal charges (Section 88 of the RP Act, 1951). Declaration of assets and liabilities to the Ethics Committee of House by the Members of Parliament. Recommendation/Observations of Committee 17. The Committee observes that the aspects of transparency of the financial matters of the political parties are fully covered under the laws and mechanisms as referred to above. 18. The Committee understands that none of the six political parties, who happened to be respondent to CIC Order of 3 rd June, 2013, challenged the order in the higher judiciary. That was an option with those political parties, which they did not exercise, as the instant case is a case of misinterpretation of a clear provision of law. 19. The present amendment has been brought by the Government with a view to resolve the issue whether political parties are public authorities or not by specifically excluding them from the RTI Act so as to completely avoid the scope of ambiguity. The Committee considers that proposed amendment is a right step to address the issue once for all. Committee, therefore, recommends for passing of the Bill. 20. In the course of deliberations, the Committee s attention was drawn to the sustainability of legislation in the court of law. In this connection, Committee noted the suggestions made by Attorney General of India vis-a-vis Law Secretary. The Attorney General of India was apprehensive that this law would not sustain the test of judicial scrutiny as it was creating a class within a class without having any consideration to the principle of intelligible differentia having reasonable nexus with objective of the Act, whereas the Law Secretary was of the view that it was quite sustainable since Parliament has legislative competence to override the CIC decision. The Committee, however, subscribes to the opinion expressed by the Law Secretary. 21. The Committee is of the strong view that laws should not be laid down through a process of misinterpretation of clear provisions of law.

17 5 Minutes of Dissent submitted by Ms. Anu Aga I consider political parties to be public authorities because they get substantive financial funding from the Government of India. For example: ❷ ❷ ❷ ❷ Allotment of land in prime areas of the national and state capitals at subsidised rates. Allotment of bungalows at highly subsidized rates. Free airtime on Doordarshan and All India Radio during Lok Sabha and State Assembly elections. Tax exemption on donations. 2. Political parties compete in elections to receive a mandate from the public to form the Government and therefore they are very different from ordinary NGOs or media houses or indeed any other private associations. It is in the public interest that Political Parties disclose information about themselves to citizens because parties are the most essential ingredient for the functioning of our democracy, they perform a public duty, they have a public function and they have a legal basis. 3. There is concern among the Political Parties that if they come under the RTI Act their rivals will use RTI applications to get critical information and their strategies. However, under the Section 8(1) (d), there is no obligation for any public authority to give to a citizen information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party. To further safeguard this concern, the Supreme Court or Central Information Commission itself could issue a clarification with special reference to exempting a political party from voluntary disclosure on matters that give its rivals/competitors information about its strategies. 4. There is currently very little transparency about the financial affairs of political parties. They are only required to submit expense reports to the Election Commission during elections, and income tax statements to the tax authorities. But more than 80% of their income is from unknown sources, as was revealed in a recent RTI application. Their tax exempt status is contingent on their filing tax returns. But non-filing attracts no penalty, nor recovery of taxes. The Election Commission can register, but not de-register or penalize parties in any way. So it is very important that their finances be disclosed via RTI framework. Most importantly, if political parties are to play a critical role in improving governance, they themselves must submit to higher standards of transparency and accountability. It is of utmost importance that financing and expenses of parties be completely transparent. Sd/- (Anu Aga) Member, Rajya Sabha 5

18

19 MINUTES

20

21 II SECOND MEETING The Department-related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice met at 3:00 P.M. on Friday, the 27 th September, 2013 in Room No. G-074, Parliament House Library, New Delhi. MEMBERS PRESENT 1. Shri Shantaram Naik Chairman RAJYA SABHA 2. Ms. Anu Aga 3. Shri Ram Vilas Paswan 4. Shri Sukhendu Sekhar Roy 5. Shri Bhupender Yadav LOK SABHA 6. Shri E.T. Mohammed Basheer 7. Shri Shailendra Kumar 8. Shri Arjun Meghwal 9. Shri Pinaki Misra 10. Shri S.S. Ramasubbu 11. Shri Abhijit Mukherjee 12. Shri Vijay Bahadur Singh 13. Dr. Prabha Kishore Taviad SECRETARIAT Shri Alok Kumar Chatterjee, Joint Secretary Shri K.P. Singh, Director Shri Ashok K. Sahoo, Joint Director Shrimati Niangkhannem Guite, Assistant Director Shrimati Catherine John L., Assistant Director I. * * * II. The Right to Information (Amendment) Bill, 2013 Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions Department of Personnel and Training 1. Dr. S.K. Sarkar, Secretary 2. Shri Manoj Joshi, Joint Secretary 3. Shri Sandeep Jain, Director (IR) *** Relates to some other matter. 9

22 10 Legislative Department 1. Dr. Sanjay Singh, Additional Secretary 2. Shri. Udaya Kumara, Additional Legislative Counsel 3. Shri. K.V. Kumar, Deputy Legislative Counsel 2. * * * 3. * * * 4. * * * 5. * * * 6. * * * The Right to Information (Amendment) Bill, The Chairman then welcomed the Secretary, Department of Personnel and Training and senior officials of DoPT and Legislative Department to the meeting. He then requested the Secretary to make a presentation on the Right to Information (Amendment) Bill, The Secretary, while making a power point presentation on the Bill, apprised the Committee that in the past, in a series of decisions, the High Courts and the Central Information Commission held a number of Non-Governmental Organizations as Public authorities in relation to the Right to Information Act, 2005 and that in its decision dated 3 rd June, 2013, the Central Information Commission held that some Political Parties are public authorities in relation to the RTI Act. He stated that on examination of the said decision of the Central Information Commission, it was observed that the Central Information Commission had made a very liberal interpretation of Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act. He opined that Political Parties are not established or constituted by or under the Constitution or by any other laws made by Parliament and that they are only registered under the Representation of the People Act, He further stated that there are already provisions in the Representation of the People Act, 1951, as well as in the Income Tax Act which ensure to necessary transparency regarding financial aspects of a Political Party. 9. While responding to the queries raised by the Chairman and Members of the Committee, the representative of Department of Personnel & Training clarified that in response to an application under the RTI Act, every information that is not exempted under Section 8 of the Act and which is available with the public authority has to be provided. 10. The Chairman and Members of the Committee expressed their reservations about the Central Information Commission s decision dated 3 rd June, (The witnesses then withdrew) 11. A verbatim record of the proceedings of the meeting was kept. 12. The Committee then adjourned at 4.32 P.M. *** Relates to some other matter.

23 11 V FIFTH MEETING The Department-related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice met at A.M. on Wednesday, the 6 th November, 2013 in Committee Room G-074, Ground Floor, Parliament Library Building, New Delhi. MEMBERS PRESENT 1. Shri Shantaram Naik Chairman RAJYA SABHA 2. Shri Ram Jethmalani 3. Shri Ram Vilas Paswan 4. Shri Sukhendu Sekhar Roy LOK SABHA 5. Shri T.R. Baalu 6. Shri N.S.V. Chitthan 7. Shri P.C. Gaddigoudar 8. Shri Shailendra Kumar 9. Shri Arjun Meghwal 10. Shri Pinaki Misra 11. Shri Abhijit Mukherjee 12. Shri S.S. Ramasubbu 13. Shri S. Semmalai 14. Shri S.D. Shariq 15. Shrimati Meena Singh 16. Shri Vijay Bahadur Singh 17. Dr. Prabha Kishore Taviad SECRETARIAT Shri Alok Kumar Chatterjee, Joint Secretary Shri K.P. Singh, Director Shri Ashok K. Sahoo, Joint Director Shrimati Niangkhannem Guite, Assistant Director Shrimati Catherine John L., Assistant Director 11

24 12 WITNESSES: At A.M. 1. Association for Democratic Reforms, New Delhi; (i) Prof. Jagdeep Chhokar (ii) Shri Anurag Mittal (iii) Ms. Shivam Kapoor 2. National Campaign for People s Right to Information, New Delhi; (i) Ms. Anjali Bharadwaj (ii) Shri Shekhar Singh 3. Shri Subash Chandra Agrawal, New Delhi; 4. (i) Adv. Om Prakash Saxena (ii) Shri Neeraj Saxena (i) Shri Sanjeev Gupta (ii) Shri Anuj Aggarwal 5. (i) Shri Kamlesh Shantilal Shah (ii) Ms. Ankita Kamlesh Shah Ghaziabad; RTI Activists, Nagpur; 6. Shri K.K. Sharma, New Delhi; 7. Shri Kulamani Mishra, Odisha. At 2.30 P.M. 8. Shri Shailesh Gandhi, Former Chief Information Commissioner, Mumbai; 9. Akhil Bharatiya Grahak Panchayat, Delhi; (i) Shri B.S. Sachdeva (ii) Dr. Jaikishan (iii) Shri Prabhat Gujral 10. Shri Ashok Mittal, Indian Council of Universities, Mathura; 11. Shri Nripendra Misra, Public Interest Litigation, Delhi; 12. Shri Sarabjit Roy, India Against Corruption, Jan Andolan and National Campaign for Political Reform in India, New Delhi; 13. Adv. R.L. Saravanan, Chennai; 14. Shri V. Ramesan, Potti Sreeramulu Foundation, Andhra Pradesh; and 15. (i) Shri Rahul Kadiyan (ii) Ms. Swati Chawla Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions Department of Personnel and Training Ms. Mamta Kundra, Joint Secretary.

25 13 2. The Chairman welcomed the Members of the Committee, witnesses and senior officers of the Department of Personnel and Training to the meeting. He then requested Prof. Jagdeep Chhokar to place before the Committee, his views on the Right to Information (Amendment) Bill, Prof. Jagdeep Chhokar, while tendering his views on the Bill, emphasized upon the vital role played by political parties in the polity of our nation and the need to ensure transparency in the functioning of political parties. He drew attention of the Committee to the 170 th Report of the Law Commission of India titled Reform of the Electoral Laws wherein it was observed that democracy and accountability must bind the political parties which are integral to parliamentary democracy. 4. Thereafter, Shrimati Anjali Bharadwaj voiced her concern about the proposed amendment to the Right to Information Act and suggested that the apprehensions of political parties that disclosure of information under the RTI Act may turn out to be harmful to them, can be taken care of, by the Rules which can be framed under the Act. While elucidating upon the reasons as to why political parties should come under the purview of the RTI Act, Shri Shekhar Singh opined that the political parties are in receipt of public resources and that the public who have donated their money, given their hopes and support to a political party, have the right to know whether that political party is living up to their hopes and aspirations. 5. Shri Subash Chandra Agrawal, while allaying the apprehensions raised with respect to the CIC decision dated 3 rd June, 2013 opined that Section 8(1) and 7(a) of the RTI Act, 2005 are sufficient to address such concerns and that political parties need to give only that information which is available with them. He expressed his views that if the public authorities earnestly comply with the provision for suo-motu disclosure in the RTI Act, the number of applications filed under the statute would decrease significantly. 6. Advocate Om Prakash Saxena pointed out some incongruities, which according to him, exist in certain decisions of the Central Information Commission. Shri Kamlesh Shantilal Shah, while placing on record his opposition to the proposed amendment, suggested that the best feasible alternative was to challenge the impugned CIC decision in a Court of law. 7. Shri K.K. Sharma highlighted the instances of misuse of the RTI Act which came to his notice during his tenure in the Delhi Government wherein many trivial and unrelated queries raised under the Act, resulted in unnecessary wastage of manpower, time and resources. He put forth the proposal that the public can seek information available with the Election Commission of India and State Election Commission, rather than directly from the political parties. He suggested that the time period given in the RTI Act to furnish information may be enhanced. 8. Shri Kulamani Mishra averred that the proposed amendment is an unnecessary attempt to curtail the rights of the public to know and to act against the wrongdoing of political parties in their financial management and inner party democracy. 9. The witnesses responded to the queries raised by the Members of the Committee. (The witnesses then withdrew) (The Committee adjourned for lunch and re-assembled at 2.30 P.M.) 10. The Chairman welcomed the witnesses and senior officers of the Department of Personnel and Training to the meeting. He then requested Shri Shailesh Gandhi to present his views on the Right to Information (Amendment) Bill, 2013 before the Committee. 11. Shri Shailesh Gandhi, while highlighting the benefits of the RTI Act, stated that the concerns raised about the impugned decision of CIC were unfounded and that it was high time that citizens are accepted as the masters of the Government. He was of the view that challenging the CIC decision in a Court of law was a better option than the proposed amendment.

26 Expressing his support to the CIC decision, Shri B.S. Sachdeva opined that if political parties are excluded from the purview of the RTI Act, then NGOs would also register themselves as political parties to enjoy such immunity. Shri Ashok Mittal, speaking on behalf of the private universities and educational institutions, stated that though they did not receive financial support from the Government, they had been brought under the ambit of the RTI Act, which according to him, was against the intention of the Parliament while enacting the statute. He narrated a few instances wherein RTI Act was allegedly misused by vested interests. 13. Shri Nripendra Misra pointed out that during the debates in the House on the RTI Bill in 2009, the Government had assured that no amendments would be made unless there is wide public consultation and that such consultation was not done for the proposed amendment. He stated that out of the 1,450 registered political parties, only 112 of them submitted their annual financial statements in and that only 56 political parties gave information about the donations received by them in He raised doubts about the effectiveness of the relevant provisions of the Representation of People Act, 1951 and the Income Tax Act, 1961 in ensuring financial transparency of political parties. 14. Shri Sarabjit Roy disagreed with the CIC decision, both in its reasoning and in its processes. He underscored the need for quick disposal of appeals pending with the CIC and the requirement of the full CIC Bench to decide on vial matters, such as the decision dated 3 rd June, Advocate R.L. Saravaranan, while voicing his opposition to the proposed amendment, based his submissions on the premise that the Bill violates Article 14 of the Constitution, in that it treats political parties differently from other registered associations. 15. While placing before the Committee, his views that political parties should not be made public authorities, Shri Rahul Kadiyan stated that the CIC has, in fact, amended the RTI Act by bringing political parties under its purview and also encroached upon the powers of the Election Commission of India. Shri V. Ramesan, while opposing the proposed amendment, dismissed fears of misuse of the RTI Act by political rivals. 16. The witnesses responded to the points put forward by the Members of the Committee. (The witnesses then withdrew) 17. A verbatim record of the proceedings of the meeting of the Committee was kept. 18. The meeting adjourned at 4.21 P.M. to meet again at A.M. on 13 th November, 2013.

27 15 VI SIXTH MEETING The Department-related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice met at A.M. on Wednesday, the 27 th November, 2013 in Room No. 63, First Floor, Parliament House, New Delhi. MEMBERS PRESENT 1. Shri Shantaram Naik Chairman RAJYA SABHA 2. Ms. Anu Aga 3. Shri Parimal Nathwani 4. Shri Ram Vilas Paswan 5. Shri Sukhendu Sekhar Roy 6. Shri Ramchandra Prasad Singh LOK SABHA 7. Shri T.R. Baalu 8. Shir P.C. Gaddigoudar 9. Shri Shailendra Kumar 10. Shri Pinaki Misra 11. Shri Abhijit Mukherjee 12. Shri S.S. Ramasubbu 13. Smt. Meena Singh 14. Shri Vijay Bahadur Singh 15. Dr. Prabha Kishore Taviad 16. Shri Suresh Kashinath Taware SECRETARIAT Shri Alok Kumar Chatterjee, Joint Secretary Shri K.P. Singh, Director Shri Ashok K. Sahoo, Joint Director Shrimati Niangkhannem Guite, Assistant Director Shrimati Catherine John L., Assistant Director WITNESSES Representatives of Communist Party of India (Marxist) Shri Nilotpal Basu, former M.P. and Member of the Central Secretariat of the Party Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training) Ms. Mamta Kundra, Joint Secretary 15

28 16 2. The Chairman welcomed the witnesses and senior officers of the Department of Personnel and Training to the meeting. He then requested Shri Nilotpal Basu to place before the Committee, the views of Communist Party of India (Marxist) on the Right to Information (Amendment) Bill, Shri Nilotpal Basu drew the attention of the Committee to a decision of the Supreme Court pronounced subsequent to the impugned order of the Central Information Commission dated 3 rd June, He stated in this regard that in Thalapalam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. and Others vs. State of Kerala 2013 STPL (Web) 818 SC, the Supreme Court has made it very clear that merely providing subsidies, grants, exemptions, privileges, etc., as such, cannot be said to be providing funding to a substantial extent unless the record shows that the funding was so substantial to the body which practically runs by such funding and but for such funding, it would struggle to exist. 4. He was of the view that the RTI Act, 2005 as passed by Parliament, did not envisage the political parties, but only Government or Government agencies which are mainly utilizing public funds, to be within the ambit of the Act. He emphasized on the importance of transparency and accountability of political parties and suggested that the political parties should suo motu disclose financial details. He also expressed the inability to identify all individuals who contribute for the political party, especially in small amounts. 5. The witness responded to the queries raised by the Members of the Committee. (The witness then withdrew) 6. The Committee then took up for consideration its draft Sixty-third and Sixty-fourth Reports on the Rajasthan Legislative Council Bill, 2013 and the Judicial Appointments Commission Bill, The Members expressed their views on the draft Reports and adopted the same with some minor modifications. 7. The Committee then authorized the Chairman and in his absence, Shri Sukhendu Sekhar Roy to present the Reports in the Rajya Sabha and Shri Shailendra Kumar and in his absence, Shri Abhijit Mukherjee to lay the same on the Table of the Lok Sabha, on Friday, the 6 th December, A verbatim record of the proceedings of the meeting of the Committee was kept. 9. The meeting adjourned at P.M.

29 17 VII SEVENTH MEETING The Department-related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice met at A.M. on Friday, the 13 th December, 2013 in Committee Room A, Parliament House Annexe, New Delhi. MEMBERS PRESENT 1. Shri Shantaram Naik Chairman RAJYA SABHA 2. Ms. Anu Aga 3. Shri Sukhendu Sekhar Roy LOK SABHA 4. Shri E.T. Mohammed Basheer 5. Shri Shailendra Kumar 6. Shri Pinaki Misra 7. Shri Abhijit Mukherjee 8. Shri S.S. Ramasubbu 9. Shrimati Meena Singh 10. Shri Vijay Bahadur Singh 11. Dr. Prabha Kishore Taviad SECRETARIAT Shri Alok Kumar Chatterjee, Joint Secretary Shri K.P. Singh, Director Shri Ashok K. Sahoo, Joint Director Smt. Niangkhannem Guite, Assistant Director Smt. Catherine John L., Assistant Director 2. The Chairman extended a warm welcome to all the Members. The Committee then took up for consideration its draft Sixty-sixth Report on the Right to Information (Amendment) Bill, The Members expressed their views on the draft Report and adopted the same with some minor modifications. Ms. Anu Aga submitted a Note of dissent. The Committee agreed to append appropriately the same to the Report. 3. The Committee then authorized the Chairman and in his absence, Shri Sukhendu Sekhar Roy to present the Report in the Rajya Sabha and Shri Shailendra Kumar and in his absence, Shri S.S. Ramasubbu to lay the same on the Table of the Lok Sabha, on Monday, the 16 th December, Thereafter, the Chairman informed the Members that the Assam Legislative Council Bill, 2013 has been referred to the Committee on 11 th December, 2013 for examination and report within three months. The Committee authorized the Secretariat to issue a Press Communique seeking views/ suggestions on the Bill from the public. 17

30 18 5. The Committee then reviewed the status of the pending subjects/bills. The Committee decided to visit Kolkata and Guwahati from 19 th to 23 rd January, 2014 in connection with the examination of Bills viz., The Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Bill, 2013 and Assam Legislative Council Bill, The Committee accordingly, authorized the Chairman to seek necessary permission of Hon ble Chairman, Rajya Sabha for undertaking the said study visit. 6. The meeting adjourned at A.M.

31 19 ANNEXURES

32

33 ANNEXURE-A AS INTRODUCED IN LOK SABHA 07 May, 2012 Bill No. 112 of 2013 THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2013 A BILL to amend the Right to Information Act, BE it enacted by Parliament in the Sixty-fourth Year of the Republic of India as follows: 1. (1) This Act may be called the Right to Information (Amendment) Act, (2) It shall be deemed to have come into force on the 3rd day of June, In section 2 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act), in clause (h), the following Explanation shall be inserted, namely: Explanation. The expression authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted by any law made by Parliament shall not include any association or body of individuals registered or recognised as political party under the Representation of the People Act, After section 31 of the principal Act, the following section shall be inserted, namely: 32. Notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, decree or order of any court or commission, the provisions of this Act, as amended by the Right to 21 Short title and and commencement. 22 of Amendment of section of Insertion of new section 32. Validation.

34 22 Information (Amendment) Act, 2013, shall have effect and shall be deemed always to have effect, in the case of any association or body of individuals registered or recognised as political party under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 or any other law for the time being in force and the rules made or notifications issued thereunder.. 43 of 1951.

35 23 STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS The Right to Information Act, 2005 was enacted by the Government for setting out a framework for effectuating the right to information for citizens and to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority. 2. The Central Information Commission in one of its decision dated has held that the political parties namely AICC/INC, BJP, CPI (M), CPI, NCP and BSP are public authorities under section 2(h) of the said Act. The Government considers that the CIC has made a liberal interpretation of section 2(h) of the said Act in its decision. The political parties are neither established nor constituted by or under the Constitution or by any other law made by Parliament. Rather, they are registered or recognised under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and the rules/orders made or issued thereunder. 3. It has also been observed that there are already provisions in the Representation of the People Act, 1951 as well as in the Incometax Act, 1961 which deals with the transparency in the financial aspects of political parties and their candidates. 4. Declaring a political party as public authority under the RTI Act would hamper its smooth internal working, which is not the objective of the said Act and was not envisaged by Parliament under the RTI Act. Further, the political rivals may misuse the provisions of RTI Act, thereby adversely affecting the functioning of the political parties. 5. In view of above, the Government has decided to amend the RTI Act to keep the political parties out of the purview of the RTI Act, with a view to remove the adverse effects of the said decision of the CIC. It is also necessary to give retrospective effect to the proposed amendment with effect from the date of the said decision of CIC, that is, 3rd day of June, The Bill seeks to achieve the above objects. NEW DELHI; The 5th August, V. NARAYANASAMY 23

36 24 ANNEXURE EXTRACT FROM THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005 (22 OF 2005) * * * * * Definitions. 2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, * * * * * (h) public authority means any authority or body or institution or self-government established or constituted (a) by or under the Constitution; (b) by any other law made by Parliament; (c) by any other law made by State Legislature; (d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government, and includes any (i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed; (ii) non-government organisation substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government; * * * * * 24

37 25 LOK SABHA A BILL to amend the Right to Information Act, (Shri V. Narayanasamy, Minister of State in the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions) 25

38 26 ANNEXURE-B DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING (M/o Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions) Part-I: Comments and Suggestions on the Bill Sl. Memorandum Name of Comments/Suggestions Response of Government No. No. Organisation Aloke Kumar, Kolkata No Law can be made to have retrospective effect for the purpose of setting aside any judgement of a court that has provided justice to any party in the case. Being a legal issue, M/o Law and Justice may be consulted. If political parties are not brought under RTI Act NGOs would also raise similar demand. Since no such proposal has been received, this issue has not been examined by this Ministry. Political parties are instrumentalities of the Government and they must be accountable to the Government. There are already provisions in the Representation of People Act, 1951 and the Income-tax Act, 1961 which deal with the transparency in the financial aspects of political parties Indian National Congress Support the proposal of political parties out of ambit of RTI Act, No Comments Communist Party of India Availing of Free airtime during election time cannot be treated as substantial funding. However, ready to reveal all required details regarding Finonces of the party. The transparency in financial aspects of the political parties is taken care of by Representation of People Act, 1951 and Income Tax Act, Nationalist Congress Party Support the proposal to keep political parties out of ambit of RTI. No Comments.

39 CPI (Marxist) T.K. Rangarajan, M.P. (R.S.) Baijayant Jay Panda, M.P. (L.S.) Subhash Chandra Agarwal Dr. T.V. Govindan National Campaign for People s Right to Information Supports the proposal to keep political parties out of ambit of RTI. Powers of Election Commission need to be enhanced to regulate the affairs of political parties till then Bill should not be passed. Surrender Land, Free Airtime, IT exemptions benefits etc. if political parties do not want to come under RTI Act. Political parties are instrumentalities of the Government and they must be accountable to the Government. Candidates of a political party are required to declare their election expenses to EC but are not audited. Even if the EC is strengthened, bringing political parties under RTI Act is critical. Political parties use public resources and also hold information which is of public importance and should be disclosed. On point that political rivals might misuse the potential of RTI Act, a public authority has to provide only such information which is available in material form. No Comments. This is for the Ministry of Law and Justice and Election Commission to decide. There are already provisions in the Representation of People Act, 1951 and the Income-tax Act, 1961 which deal with the transparency in the financial aspects of political parties. There are already provisions in the Representation of People Act, 1951 and the Income-tax Act, 1961 which deal with the transparency in the financial aspects of political parties. This is for the Ministry of Low and Justice and Election Commission to decide. The position of political parties is unique. They are neither created nor established by or under the constitution. There are already provisions in the Representation of People Act, 1951 and the Income-tax Act, 1961 which deal with the transparency in the financial aspects of political parties. Since they work in a competitive environment with other political parties, there is every possibility of the misuse of RTI Act by the political rivals. Thus, in the view of this Ministry, political parties may be exempted from the purview of the RTI Act.