Supreme Court To Hear In April Plea To Bring Political Parties Under RTI Act

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear in April the issue of whether all political parties can be considered as 'public authorities' under the RTI Act,2005. 

The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing a batch of pleas seeking directions to bring all political parties as "public authorities" under the Right to Information Act, 2005. 

Advocate Prashant Bhushan appearing for ADR stressed that the matter has been pending in the Top Court for 10 years now. Sr Advocate Gopal Sankarnarayanan also appeared before the Court. 

Bhushan submitted that the present issue is impliedly covered in the landmark Electoral Bonds Case where the Constitution bench held that anonymous electoral bonds are violative of the right to information under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

"It is covered in a way by your lordship's judgment in the electoral bonds case, where your lordships have said that it is absolutely essential that voters have right to get information about parties' funding."

CJI interjected to point out that it was imperative to hear the case on merits. The bench directed that the matters be listed on the regular board in the week commencing April 21, 2025. 

Bhushan highlighted that the Central Information Commission (CIC) in its 2013 verdict held that the political parties can come under the RTI Act.

Notably, the CIC in its order dated June 3, 2013 declared 6 national political parties namely the INC, BJP, CPI(M), CPIO, NCP and ESP to be "public authorities" under section 2(h) of the RTI Act. The relevant portion states : 

"We hold that INC, BJP, CPI(M), CPIO, NCP and ESP have been substantially financed by the Central Government under section 2(h)(ii) of the RTI Act. The criticality of the role being played by these Political Parties in our democratic set up and the nature of duties performed by them also point towards their public character, bringing them in the ambit of section 2(h). The constitutional and legal provisions discussed herein above also point towards their character as public authorities." 

In doing so,  Bhushan submitted the CIC relied on several decisions by the Delhi High Court and Punjab and Haryana High Court. The CJI then asked to check on the status of the conflicting Delhi High Court decisions on a similar issue and whether it has been challenged before the Apex Court presently. The conversation went as follows:

Bhushan: "Chandigarh Club, then India International Centre all those (cases) on the basis of substantial funding- that land was given to them virtually-" 

CJI: "I am aware of that, that's why I am asking what happened to those 3 judgements? I think the appeals are pending here" 

Bhushan reverted saying that he would look into their updated status, but added that "political parties stand on a different footing here" 

Bhushan was referring to the  CIC's decision in Pradeep Bhanot v. Chandigarh Club, Chandigarh which held Chandigarh Club to come under the ambit of the RTI Act. 

Similarly in Amrit Mehta v. India International Centre, the CIC held IIC to be a public authority under the RTI Act. Here the issue was that yearly rent payable by IIC to the Central Government was Rs. 8,442/- which has remained unchanged during the last five decades. IIC had taken the land on lease from Union in 1960 against a deposit of Rs. 1,68,840/- only. 

Notably in 2010 Justice Sanjiv Khanna, when he was in the Delhi High Court, held that the National Stock Exchange of India Limited would come under the purview of being a 'public authority' under the RTI Act. 

In another Delhi High Court decision, Olympic Association and others v. Veeresh Malik & others by Justice SR Bhat, it was held that IOA, the Sanskriti School came under the RTI Act. The bench held that 'Public Authority' has to be given a liberal interpretation. 

However, in 2023, the Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad held that the enquiry report of the Central Bureau of Investigation regarding an investigation in a case is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(h) of the Right to Information Act.

The Court ordered written submissions also be filed by both the parties not exceeding 3 pages within 6 weeks. 

In 2023, the bench of then CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra verbally remarked that the political parties had valid reasons for not wanting to disclose the details of their candidate selection process.

What Are The Pleas Before The Supreme Court About? 

The Supreme Court is presently seized of two petitions, one filed by Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and RTI Activist Subhash C. Agrawal and the other by advocate  Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay. ADR had filed its plea in 2015 and the Updahyay moved the Court in 2017. 

ADR has argued that political parties hold a significant power and hold over the legislature and the executive as well as their own candidates. And this hold has been made absolute because of the power of political parties to disqualify elected MPs and MLAs under the Constitution (anti-defection law). It is argued that political parties receive huge sums of money from the public as donations and are not liable to pay any taxes and must therefore be accountable to the public. The petition also seeks complete financial transparency of political parties.

While Upadhyay, in his petition stated that “the Tenth Schedule of Constitution vests great powers with the political parties in as much as they can oust even an elected member – whether Member of Parliament or Legislature of State Assembly - from the party if he steps out of party line. As per Section 29C of the RPA, donations received by political parties are required to be reported to the Election Commission. This obligation cast on the political parties also points towards their public character”.

Case Details : ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS vs. UNION OF INDIA CABINET SECRETARY| Diary No. - 16902/2015 and connected matter