Central Information Commission
Shri Balwant Singh Khera Of Hoshiarpur & ... vs Na on 8 July, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Complaint Nos. CIC/MISC/2009/0001 & CIC/MISC/2009/2 dated 18-6-2009
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 18
Complainants: Shri Balwant Singh Khera of Hoshiarpur &
Dr. Kuldip Vats of Pataudi, Haryana
Hearing for Admissibility
FACTS
These are two complaints moved before us in File No. CIC/MISC/2009/1 and CIC/MISC/2009/2 by Shri Balwant Singh Khera of Hoshiarpur & Dr. Kuldip Vats of Pataudi, Haryana. In both these cases the complaints have been pleaded that political parties are public authorities and, therefore, subject to the RTI Act. Therefore, they are liable to provide information sought by the parties and can be the subject of complaint/appeal before this Commission.
File No. CIC/MISC/2009/01 Shri Balwant Singh Khera has sought information from the following:
"The Public Information Officer: -
i) C/o the General Secretary, Bahujan Samaj Party, 12 Gurudwara Rakabganj Road, New Delhi-110001.
ii) C/o The General Secretary, Communist Party of India, Ajoy Bhavan, Kotla Marg, New Delhi-110002
iii) C/o The General Secretary, Communist Party of India (Marxist), A. K. Gopalan Bhavan, 27-29 Bhai Vir Singh Marg (Gole Market), New Delhi-110001
iv) C/o The General Secretary, Indian National Congress, 24, Akbar Road, New Delhi-110001
v) C/o The General Secretary, Nationalist Congress Party, 10 Bishambar Das Marg, New Delhi-110001
vi) C/o The General Secretary, Rashtriya Janata Dal, 13 V. P. House, Rafi Marg, New Delhi-110001
vii) C/o The General Secretary, Janata Dal (United), 7 Jantar Mantar Road, New Delhi-110001
viii) C/o The General Secretary, Indian National Lok Dal, 100 Lodi Estate, New Delhi- 110001
ix) C/o The General Secretary, Janata Dal (Secular), 5 Safdarjung lane, New Delhi-110003
x) C/o The General Secretary, Samaj Wadi Party, 18 Copernicus Lane, New Delhi-110001 1
xi) C/o The General Secretary, Shiromani Akali Dal, House No. 256, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh
xii) C/o The General Secretary, Bharatiya Janata Party, 11 Ashoka Road, New Delhi-110001 He has described he response received as follows:
"I have received responses from only three political parities, two of which have claimed that they 'are not a Public Authority' and that they 'do come under the purview of RTI Act'. The third political party has just returned my application without any response from their side. There has been no response from the remaining 9 political parties."
His prayer before us, therefore, is as follows:
"I have received responses from only three political parties, as given below; -
The Communist Party of India (CPI) have said in their letter dated 1st April 2009, 'We are not a Public Authority hence not covered.' The Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPI (M) have said, in their letter dated April 6, 2009, 'we do not come under the purview of RTI Act'.
The Janata Dal (United) has just returned my application without any response from their side.
There has been no response from the remaining 9 political parties.
Since I have not received any answer within 30 days of my application to the application to the Information Officer, I am filing this Second Appeal. Reasons for not filing the first appeal are given below."
In his grounds for moving this complaint under the RTI Act Shri Khera has quoted extensively from this Commission's decision in file Nos. CIC/AT/A2007/01029, 01263-01270 dated 29th April 2008 Ms. Anumeha C/o Association for Democratic Reforms vs. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors delivered by Central Information Commissioner, Shri A. N. Tiwari. He has then gone on to argue as follows:
"It is worth noting that Section 2(h) (ii) mentions 'non- Government organization substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate government'. Given the substantial facilities that are provided by the government to registered and recognized political parties such a 2 s office accommodation in government owned houses located in prime locations which are allotted to political parities in New Delhi as well as in the States, the provision of electoral rolls free to political parties, free air time during election campaigns, it can be safely said that political parties are 'non-Government organization substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government."
The gist of Shri Khera's argument, therefore, is that political parties qualify as public authorities within the meaning of Section 2 (h) sub Section (ii) and that the decision of this Commission cited demands that information held by these political parties be disclosed.
File No. CIC/MISC/2009/02 In this case Dr. Kuldip Vats has sought the following information from Smt. Sonia Gandhi, President, AICC:
1. Who are the outsiders who have recommended this Outsider for nomination to the post of Congress President for Block Pataudi, except outsider person Chaudhary Bhupender Singh?
2. Can an Outsider be nominated President of any Block? If yes, who are the persons who have been posted as Block President?
3. Please supply a copy of the Gazette Notification nominating Outsider Shri Vikram Singh Yadav as Congress President for the Block.
4. If an outsider is posted as Designated Officer of the Block, is that block neglected?
5. If yes, then why an outsider is posted as such? Is not it an injustice for the public of that area?
6. Is it wrong to nominate an outsider as Congress President of a Block?
7. If yes, then why injustice has been done with Pataudi Block
8. If not, then why a person from Centre or a person from foreign is nominated as President of the Block? Why only a person from Rewari has been forced on the public of Pataudi Block?
9. Looking to his own background, an outsider Congress President has been forced on the public of Pataudi because the MLA himself is an outsider. Is not it injustice to the public of Pataudi.
10. Who nominates Congress President for a Block? And on whose recommendations it is done so?
11. Who can nominate Congress President for the Block?
12. On what grounds Congress President of a Block can be removed?
To this he received a response dated 3-2-09 from Treasurer Shri Moti Lal Vora MP as follows:
3"I am to state that RTI Act 2005 is applicable to Government offices/ bodies and not to political parties which are private in nature.
Accordingly, your application in original, along with the Banker Cheque for Rs. 50/- is returned herewith."
Dr. Vats's plea before us in his complaint is as below:
"When these Political parties are governed by rules of this Govt. and follow the rules of this Government, and approach Hon'ble Courts for any decision of the party, then why R.T.I. Act is not applicable on these Political Parties?"
Both complaints were listed for hearing for examination of their admissibility under the RTI Act. However, although, both complainants were informed by our notices of June 26, 2009 addressed to Shri Balwant Singh Khera and of July 3, 2009 addressed to Dr. Vats and both parties sought to be contacted on the telephone on the date of hearing by the Registry, neither party is present.
DECISION NOTICE The ruling sought to be relied upon in our decision in appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2007/01029, 01263-01270 dated 29th April 2008 to argue the present petitions is misplaced. That decision was given with respect to the disclosability of information held by a public authority which was the Income Tax Department and therefore, held to be accessible under the RTI Act as 'information' defined in sub Section (f) of Section 2, which includes information regarding "any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force". This information is to be accessed through the Dep't, not through the political party. This does not in any way render that private body a public authority. Even under Section 2 (h) simply concessions provided to any private agency by Government cannot be construed as that agency being owned, controlled or substantially financed directly or indirectly by funds provided by Government. It may be noted that in the decision of this Commission cited by appellant Shri Balwant Singh Khera this Commission has held as follows:
4"The laws of the land do not make it mandatory for political parities to disclose the sources of their findings and even less so the manner of expending those funds. In the absence of such laws, the only way a citizen can gain access to the details of funding of political parties is through their Income Tax Returns filed annually with Income Tax authorities. This is about the closest the political parities get to accounting for the sources and the extent of their funding and their expenditure 1 ."
This would imply that there is no other means of political parties disclosing their funding other than the returns held by a public authority, which is the Income Tax Department. With regard to submissions of Dr. Kuldip Vats simply because a political party has the liberty to take recourse to the law, which liberty every private entity in a society governed by the rule of law enjoys, does not make it a public authority. We cannot, therefore, agree that political parties fall within the definition of public authority as defined in any of the clauses of Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act. Therefore, we hold that both these complaints e inadmissible under the RTI Act, 2005.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties, including the political parties concerned.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 8-7-2009 Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 8-7-2009 1 Emphasis ours to highlight the fact 5