Does the RTI Act cover political parties?

Political parties are up in arms against the CIC judgement which says they are public authorities
and hence within the purview of the RTI Act. The public is infuriated that political parties should be opposed to the CIC order. It sees this as unwillingness on the part of the political class to practise transparency. Are political parties being unduly cussed in the matter?

People are entitled to their views on whether it is desirable to bring political parties under the purview of the RTI Act. The important question, however, is what the RTI Act, as it stands, has to say on
the subject. In other words, how sound is the legal basis for the CIC's judgement? An article
in EPW raises this question and comes to the conclusion that the CIC's judgement is rather infirm.

The author, Anirudh Burman, points out that the CIC gave three reasons in justification of its judgement: political parties “are continuously engaged in performing public duty”, receive sub-

stantial financing from the government and have important constitutional and legal rights and liabilities.". He opines that the the last reason given has no legal basis as "This criterion is
not present in the definition of “public authority”at all."

He then scrutinises the other two reasons. Can political authorities be said to be
"public authorities" because they perform public functions? He thinks not- nowhere in
the Act is a "public functions" test specified for determining whether an entity is a public
authority. Who can be considered public authorities is laid down down very precisely in the
Act. The CIC also refers to the fact that political parties are registered with the Election Commission
and argues that this makes them somewhat similar to entities to established by government.
However, there is a Karnataka High Court  judgement that ruled that goes against this stand.

What of the argument that political parties get "substantial financing" from government? The difficulty, Burman points out, is that the CIC has steered clear of defining what constitutes "substantial financing". He argues that unless it can be established that, without the support they receive from government, political parties cannot carry on with their activities, they cannot be
said to receive ""substantial financing".

It is important to distinguish between transparency in respect of funding of political parties
and the broader transparency required under the RTI Act. In respect of activities not related
to raising funds, Burman argues- correctly, in my view- that transparency may not be desirable
and may pose obstacles to their effective functioning:

First, as a body seeking to outdo other competing parties, a political party has the

right to keep certain parts of its activities hidden from public view.  .....Second, in light of the fact that the RTI creates this information asymmetry, theRTI mechanisms may become a tool of political warfare rather than a tool forpromoting transparency.

The danger is stretching the RTI Act to cover entities it was not intended to is that it may
end up discrediting the Act itself, quite apart from rendering the entire political class
hostile to it.In the process, a most valuable instrument of empowerment and the purpose
of rendering a whole range of public authorities accountable may fall by the wayside.