Why is the CPI(M) opposed to the RTI (Right to Information) Act being made applicable to it?  The Central Information Commission has ruled that political parties should be brought under the purview of the Act yet the political parties are refusing to accept the decision?

S Kameswari, Hyderabad

THE CPI(M) fully supported the passage of the RTI Act at the time of the UPA-1 government.  The Party strongly believes that the public has a right to know about the details regarding decisions taken and expenditure made by the central and state governments and all State institutions.  As far as political parties are concerned, however, there is an important fact to be remembered and that is that they are not ‘public authorities’ ie, they are neither governmental nor State-funded entities.

The CIC’s decision to include political parties within the purview of the Act is wrong on several counts.  To begin with, political parties are not statutory entities like governments and government institutions.  They have not been constituted under any provision of the Constitution.  Further, a political party is a voluntary association of citizens on the basis of a common ideology, political programme or set of ideas.  It is not funded or created by any government and therefore cannot be considered a ‘public authority’.

The CPI(M) has supported transparency in matters of Party funding.  It submits its accounts for scrutiny to the Election Commission.  These accounts are in the public domain and can be accessed by anyone.  The Party funding comes from the levy paid by Party members according to the Party constitution, to donations collected by Party members and sympathisers from the public and from the special levy paid by all elected representatives of the Party. All these sources of funding are public knowledge and, ever since submission of accounts by political parties to the Election Commission became mandatory, they are being regularly submitted and form part of the website of the Commission. 

As far as the decision-making processes within the Party are concerned they cannot be treated in the same manner as policy decisions taken by governments and government departments.  It is absolutely necessary to ensure that free and fair debates are ensured within parties.  If debates and decision-making processes become accessible to anyone making use of RTI this will have the deleterious effect on inner-party democracy.

There is also a real danger of political parties who have limited infrastructure and resources getting completely bogged down by the necessity of answering innumerable queries on small and petty issues and matters.  It is not possible for them to maintain departments to deal specifically with this work.

The PIL that has resulted in the CIC order specifically wants political parties to provide information under the RTI on the criteria they employ to finalise candidates for elections.  This is something that seriously impinges on the rights and decision-making powers of political parties.

In conclusion, the CPI(M) supports all efforts to ensure financial probity and transparency as far as political parties and their funding are concerned.  It has no problem with submission of accounts to the EC and their display in the public domain.  It does, however, oppose measures that will actually undermine its ability to function as a political party on the basis of its own Constitution.  It has, therefore, opposed the notification issued by the CIC in the Supreme Court.  Political Parties are an essential component of parliamentary democracy and nothing should be done to undermine their ability to perform their respective and essential roles.

The Amar Ujala dated August 19, 2015 had a report headlined “Political parties do not know who donated money to them”. That report states that the BJP did not submit their election expenses statement for the Lok  Sabha elections of 2014 to the Election Commission. Why has the CPI M) not raised this matter in parliament or moved a petition in the Supreme Court to ask for the disqualification of the BJP as a political party? Also the report states that the other five national parties have submitted their statement of accounts for 2013-14. According to the report 80 percent of the income accruing to  these parties is unaccounted for as there are no details of contributors, with some of these parties claiming that they are income from coupon collections. What is the position of the CPI(M)?

Dudhnath Singh, Gopalganj, Bihar

The report states the BJP had not filed its annual statement of accounts to the Election Commission for 2013-14.  This is different from filing the election expenditure statement for the Lok Sabha elections of 2014 that you mention. The BJP would have done so, as it has to comply with the rules.

The main issue in the report is about the income of national parties, which is not accounted for.  An NGO, Election Watch, has alleged that 80 percent of the income shown by the parties is not accounted for with individual receipts.

As far as the CPI(M) is concerned, this report gives a misleading picture.  Unlike other parties, nearly 40 percent of the income of the Party comes from the levy of individual Party members. 10.5 lakh Party members pay a monthly levy to their respective Party unit.  We cannot disclose the individual names and their contributions as it is an internal matter of the Party.  But this is in no way unaccounted money. So also the Party does mass collections, through hundi or buckets, receiving small amounts from the people.  These also cannot be shown individually as it is not possible to issue individual receipts.  The amounts collected by each unit is recorded.

As for any donations of Rs 20,000 and above, as per the law, these are recorded with the name of the donor and other details.  Such amounts constitute only 3.3 percent of the total donations to the Party.

So it is totally incorrect to say that the Party raises funds from unaccounted sources.