Political parties under RTI

Topic: Political Parties, Party Systems and Anti-defection · NCERT: Beyond NCERT

Meaning

Political parties under RTI is the debate over whether political parties count as public authorities (bodies that must answer citizens' requests for information) under s.2(h) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. The Central Information Commission (CIC) said yes for six national parties on 3 June 2013. The parties have not followed that order, and petitions on the question are pending in the Supreme Court.

It matters because parties choose candidates, form governments and receive public benefits. Yet citizens cannot use RTI to learn how parties raise money or give out tickets.

Explanation

What "public authority" means (s.2(h), RTI Act, 2005)

• A public authority must appoint Public Information Officers (PIOs, the officials who receive and answer RTI requests). It must also reply to citizens' questions.
• Under the Act, a body is a public authority if:
• it is set up by the Constitution, by a law, or by a government notification; or

• it is owned, controlled or substantially financed (directly or indirectly) by government funds.

• Parties are not set up by the Constitution or by any law. So the case for covering them rests on the "substantially financed, directly or indirectly" part.

The CIC's reasoning (full bench, 3 June 2013)

• Who complained: Subhash Chandra Agrawal and Anil Bairwal of the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR).
• Who was covered: six national parties: INC/AICC, BJP, CPI(M), CPI, NCP and BSP [1][2].
• Why parties were held to be public authorities:
• Large indirect public funding. Parties get land at low rates, bungalows in Delhi, exemption from income tax and free airtime on Doordarshan and AIR [1].
• Public duties. Parties do work that affects the whole public [1].

Limits: why the order is not being followed

• No compliance. None of the six parties appointed PIOs or answered RTI requests.
• No enforcement power.
• In 2015 the CIC admitted it had no means to enforce its own order.

• So the CIC can declare the law, but it cannot make parties obey.

• Matter left unsettled.

• Petitions by ADR and others are pending in the Supreme Court.
• Until the Court decides, parties stay outside RTI in practice.

The two sides in brief

For bringing parties under RTI	Against
Parties get indirect public money, so they owe accountability to the public	Rivals could use RTI to dig into a party's internal strategy
Parties do public work: they nominate candidates and form governments	Parties already report to the ECI (s.29C) and to the tax authorities
Voters have a right to know who funds parties (ADR v. Union of India, 2024, the electoral bonds judgment)	Parties are voluntary associations, not part of the State
It would show how tickets are given and how internal elections are held	The RTI system could be flooded with requests

In the Constitution and practice

• Where it sits:
• The Constitution says nothing about parties being covered by RTI. The question falls under s.2(h) of the RTI Act, 2005.

• Parties register under s.29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA). They report donations under s.29C RPA.

• Government's response (2013):

• The Cabinet approved a bill to remove parties from the RTI Act [1].
• The RTI (Amendment) Bill, 2013 was introduced in the Lok Sabha on 12 August 2013 [2].
• It went to a Standing Committee on 5 September 2013. The committee reported on 17 December 2013 [2].
• It would have applied retrospectively from 3 June 2013. That means it would have been backdated to the day of the CIC order [2].
• It lapsed (died without being passed). So the CIC order was never overturned by law [2].

• The government argued that RTI would hamper parties' internal working and could be misused by rivals. It also said parties' finances were already covered by the RPA, 1951 and the Income Tax Act, 1961 [2].

• ECI's stand: the Election Commission of India publicly said it supports the CIC's position that parties fall under the RTI Act [3].

• Disclosure that already exists outside RTI:
• s.29C RPA: parties must report donations above ₹20,000 to the ECI in a contribution report.
• Parties also file audited annual accounts and election expenditure statements. Since 2023 all three can be filed online on an ECI portal [8].

• Gap: most party income still comes from "unknown sources", meaning donations below the reporting limit.

• Wider push for transparency: the ECI delisted 808 registered unrecognised political parties (RUPPs) in 2025:

• 334 in August 2025 [6];
• 474 on 18 September 2025, because they had not contested any election for 6 straight years [7].
• A delisted party may appeal within 30 days. It must show its audited accounts, contribution reports, expenditure reports and current office-bearers [7].

Don't confuse with

• CIC order vs. a law passed by Parliament: the CIC declared in 2013 that parties are public authorities. Parliament has not passed any law either including them or excluding them, because the 2013 amendment bill lapsed.
• RTI disclosure vs. s.29C contribution report: under RTI any citizen can ask a party for information. Under s.29C, parties only report donations above ₹20,000 to the ECI, and nobody can ask them for anything more.
• CIC vs. ECI: the CIC decides RTI disputes and issued the 2013 order. The ECI registers parties and receives their accounts. The ECI only supports the CIC's view [3] and cannot enforce RTI.
• Public authority vs. registered party: registering under s.29A RPA does not by itself make a party a public authority. The CIC relied on indirect public funding and public duties instead [1].

Prelims Hooks

• CIC full bench, 3 June 2013: held six national parties (INC, BJP, CPI(M), CPI, NCP, BSP) to be public authorities under s.2(h), RTI Act, 2005 [1][2].
• Complainants: Subhash Chandra Agrawal and Anil Bairwal (ADR).
• RTI (Amendment) Bill, 2013: introduced 12 August 2013 and backdated to 3 June 2013. It lapsed and never became law [2].
• CIC's grounds: indirect public funding (land, Delhi bungalows, tax exemption, free airtime on Doordarshan and AIR) plus public duties [1].
• Trap: "Parliament amended the RTI Act to exclude political parties." False. The bill lapsed.
• Trap: "The ECI opposed bringing parties under RTI." False. The ECI said it stands with the CIC [3].

Mains Points

• Accountability vs. autonomy:
• Parties use public resources and decide who governs, so voters have a right to know who funds them (ADR, 2024).

• A middle path is to apply RTI only to finances and candidate selection, not to internal strategy. This answers the fear that rivals will misuse it.

• The enforcement gap shows the limits of the law:

• The CIC order (2013) stands, but the CIC itself admitted in 2015 that it cannot enforce it, and the parties ignore it.

• Parties control the legislature, so they will not pass laws they dislike (NCERT). A Supreme Court ruling, or an ECI-enforced chapter in the RPA, may be the only practical way to settle the question.

• Link to wider party reform:

• RTI coverage fits with the Law Commission's proposals on internal democracy and audited accounts: a new Chapter IVC, "Regulation of Political Parties", in the RPA (170th Report, 1999) [4], and disclosure duties and penalties on parties (255th Report, 2015) [5].
• Transparency should come before any state funding of elections. Otherwise public money only strengthens the party leadership [4].

Related concepts

• Internal party democracy

Read more

• Reforming parties: internal democracy, transparency and RTI