Reforming parties: internal democracy, transparency and RTI

Detail

1. Why parties need reform

• Parties choose candidates, write manifestos and form governments. Yet the law says very little about how they run themselves.
• The main complaints are:
• one family or a small group controls the party;
• money and muscle power decide who gets tickets;
• there are no real internal elections;

• nobody knows where the funds come from.

• Internal party democracy means a party runs itself democratically. It holds regular elections for its posts, keeps open membership lists, and lets members take part in decisions (for example, who gets tickets and what the manifesto says).

2. What has been tried so far

• Anti-defection law. The Tenth Schedule was added by the 52nd Amendment (1985) and tightened by the 91st Amendment (2003). It disqualifies a legislator who leaves the party or votes against the party whip.

• Side effect: the party leadership becomes stronger. Members cannot disagree in the House even on internal matters.

• Affidavits on assets and criminal cases. After Supreme Court orders, every candidate must file an affidavit listing their assets, education and pending criminal cases.

• Gap: there is no system to check whether these affidavits are true.

• ECI order on organisational elections and tax returns. The Election Commission of India (ECI) asked parties to hold internal elections and file income-tax returns.

• (NCERT, Class 10: this is "sometimes mere formality".)

• Correcting an overstatement. (NCERT, Class 9: the ECI "ensures" inner-party democracy.) In fact, the ECI can only advise.

• The Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA) gives the ECI no power to enforce internal elections.
• Under s.29A RPA, a party only files its constitution when it registers. That constitution must promise loyalty to the Constitution of India, socialism, secularism and democracy.
• The ECI cannot usually deregister a party for breaking its own constitution. Parliament has not given it that power (see the Law Commission proposals below).

3. Suggested reforms

• A law on parties' internal affairs (NCERT, Class 10). It would require:
• a register of members;
• the party to follow its own constitution;
• an independent authority to settle disputes inside the party;

• open elections to the highest posts.

• Women: about one-third of tickets for women, and a quota for women in the party's decision-making bodies.

• State funding of elections: the government pays part of election costs.
• In kind: petrol, paper, telephone and similar items.

• In cash: based on the votes the party won in the last election.

• Law Commission, 170th Report, "Reform of the Electoral Laws" (May 1999):

• It proposed a new Chapter IVC in the RPA called "Regulation of Political Parties" [5].
• The chapter would cover internal democracy, party constitutions, party organisation, internal elections, candidate selection and voting procedures [5].
• It would give the ECI power to de-register a party that does not comply [5].

• Sequence: the Commission said parties must first be regulated (internal democracy, accounts, audit, filing with the ECI). Only then should state funding of elections be tried [5].

• Law Commission, 255th Report, "Electoral Reforms" (2015):

• It proposed wide changes to election finance: limits on candidates' spending, disclosure duties for candidates and parties, penalties on parties, and a review of state funding [6].
• It also proposed that only ECI-registered parties may contest Lok Sabha or Vidhan Sabha elections, by amending ss.4–5 RPA [6].

• It wanted a stronger, more independent ECI [6].

• Draft bill (2011): a committee chaired by Justice M.N. Venkatachaliah prepared a draft law on registering parties and regulating their affairs.

• Foreign example: Germany. Article 21 of the Basic Law (Germany's constitution) says:
• a party's internal organisation must follow democratic principles;
• parties must publicly account for where their money comes from and how they use it.

• India has no similar clause in its Constitution.

• NCERT's caution (Class 10):

• Too much regulation makes parties find ways to cheat the law.

• Parties control the legislature, so they will not pass laws they dislike.

• Classroom exercise (NCERT, Class 12, Ch 5, exercise 5): how should a party settle internal disputes? The options are to follow the president, go by the majority, hold a secret ballot, or consult senior leaders.

4. Transparency: political parties under RTI

• Public authority under s.2(h) of the RTI Act, 2005 means a body set up by the Constitution, a law or a government notification. It also includes a body owned, controlled or substantially financed (directly or indirectly) by government funds. Such a body must answer RTI requests.
• CIC full-bench decision, 3 June 2013.
• The complaints were filed by Subhash Chandra Agrawal and Anil Bairwal (ADR).
• The CIC held six national parties to be public authorities: INC/AICC, BJP, CPI(M), CPI, NCP and BSP [2][3].

• Reasons:

  • substantial indirect public funding, such as cheap land, bungalows in Delhi, income-tax exemption and free airtime on Doordarshan and AIR [2];
  • parties perform public duties [2].

• Government's response. The Cabinet approved a bill to remove parties from the RTI Act [2].

• RTI (Amendment) Bill, 2013:
  • introduced in the Lok Sabha on 12 August 2013;
  • sent to a Standing Committee on 5 September 2013, which reported on 17 December 2013;
  • it would have applied retrospectively from 3 June 2013 (backdated to the day of the CIC order);
  • it lapsed without being passed [3].

• Government's argument: RTI would hamper parties' internal working, and rivals could misuse it. Parties' finances are already covered by the RPA, 1951 and the Income Tax Act, 1961 [3].

• What happened next:

• None of the six parties appointed Public Information Officers or answered RTI requests.
• In 2015 the CIC admitted it had no means to enforce its own order.
• Petitions by ADR and others are pending in the Supreme Court.
• The ECI publicly stated that it supports the CIC's position that parties fall under the RTI Act [4].

Arguments for RTI on parties	Arguments against
Parties get indirect public money, so they owe public accountability	Rivals could use RTI to dig into internal strategy
Parties perform public functions: they nominate candidates and form governments	Parties already disclose to the ECI (s.29C) and to the tax authorities
Voters have a right to know who funds parties (the electoral bonds judgment, ADR v. Union of India, 2024)	Parties are voluntary associations, not part of the State
It would also show how tickets are given and how internal elections are run	The RTI system could be flooded with requests

• Disclosure rules that already exist:
• s.29C RPA: parties must report donations above ₹20,000 to the ECI in a contribution report.
• Parties must file audited annual accounts and election expenditure statements. Since 2023 they can file all three online on an ECI portal [9].

• Most party income still comes from "unknown sources" (donations below the reporting limit).

• ECI clean-up of registered unrecognised political parties (RUPPs):

• 334 RUPPs delisted in August 2025 [7].
• 474 more delisted on 18 September 2025 because they had not contested any election for 6 straight years. That makes 808 parties in two months [8].
• A delisted party may appeal to the Chief Electoral Officer or the ECI within 30 days. It must show audited accounts, contribution reports, expenditure reports and current office-bearers [8].

5. Routes outside the law

• Citizen pressure. Pressure groups, movements and the media can push parties through petitions, publicity and agitation.
• More and better politics. Good people should join parties and change them from inside, because "the problem of bad politics can be solved by more and better politics" (NCERT, Class 10).
• Case study: in 2007, Muhammad Yunus (Nobel laureate, Bangladesh) tried to launch a new, clean party called Nagarik Shakti (Citizens' Power). NCERT uses it to ask whether starting a new party is a realistic way to reform politics.

Prelims Hooks

• The CIC decision of 3 June 2013 held six national parties (INC, BJP, CPI(M), CPI, NCP, BSP) to be public authorities under s.2(h) of the RTI Act, 2005.
• The RTI (Amendment) Bill, 2013 would have excluded parties retrospectively from 3 June 2013. It lapsed and never became law.
• The Law Commission's 170th Report (1999) proposed a new Chapter IVC, "Regulation of Political Parties", in the RPA, 1951.
• The Law Commission's 255th Report (2015) dealt with election finance and party disclosure. It proposed that only registered parties may contest, by amending ss.4–5 RPA.
• s.29A RPA covers party registration. s.29C RPA requires parties to report donations above ₹20,000 to the ECI.
• Trap: "The ECI can enforce internal elections in parties." False. The ECI can only advise.
• Germany's Basic Law, Art. 21 requires a democratic internal order and public accounting of funds. The Indian Constitution has no such clause.
• 2025: the ECI delisted 808 RUPPs (334 in August and 474 on 18 September) for not contesting elections for 6 years.
• Nagarik Shakti (2007, Bangladesh) was Muhammad Yunus's attempt at a new, internally democratic party.

Mains Points

• Regulating parties by law (Law Commission 170th, 1999; 255th, 2015):
• Benefits: membership registers, internal elections and audited accounts would curb dynastic rule and the sale of tickets.
• Risks: NCERT warns that parties will dodge or block such laws. Rules that are too tight could make the ECI an umpire of party affairs.

• A middle path: put the regulation in the RPA, enforced by the ECI with an independent body for disputes.

• RTI for parties:

• For: parties get indirect public money and perform public functions, and voters have a right to know who funds them (ADR, 2024).
• Against: rivals could misuse RTI.

• A compromise: apply RTI only to finances and candidate selection, not to internal strategy.

• Order of reforms: internal democracy and audited accounts should come before state funding. Otherwise public money only strengthens the party leadership (Law Commission, 1999).

• Law has limits:
• The anti-defection law itself made party bosses stronger.
• Lasting reform needs pressure from citizens and the media, and people with integrity joining parties.