CIC bows before ‘stubborn’ political parties

Once again the audacity and brazenness of six major political parties in not appearing before the CIC hearing on 16th March came to light 


When the wrong doers remain stubborn about not following laws, should they get away by the concerned authority throwing up its hands although it has the right to put them in place? Well, the jury of the Central Information Commission (CIC) has exactly done that with the six major political parties, who refused to be declared as public authorities and be embedded in the Right to Information (RTI) Act as per its 2013 order, being let off.
In a shocking decision on 16th March, on Monday, the Commission observed in its order that the RTI Act does not provide the CIC with ample powers to deal with the cases of contempt and non-compliance. The jury comprising information commissioners - Manjula Prasher, Sharat Sabharwal and Vijai Sharma has sent a copy to the Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT) asking it to check out the way to overcome the problem of political parties not legally bound to CIC decision as they are not government department and also that, they cannot be penalised. (see Box for the verbatim extract of the CIC decision).  
The CIC did not take any action against the political parties – Indian National Congress (Congress), Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), Communist Party of India (Marxist)-CPI (M), Communist Party of India (CPI), Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) and Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP). It has merely reminded in its order that its 3 June 2013 order which declared political parties as public authorities and therefore bound by the RTI Act is “legally correct, and final.”
CIC also recommends that “complainants are at liberty, in view of the facts and circumstances of this case, to approach the higher courts for appropriate relief and redressal.”

RTI activist Subhash Agrawal and the Association of Democratic Reforms (ADR) had persistently followed up the issue through RTI documents and thorough investigations of how the major political parties are majorly funded by the government. They had gone into second appeal to the CIC which has time and again called the political parties for hearings but they have unanimously stayed or remained absent.
ADR in a release said that it would file a petition in the court. The statement says, “ADR is going to file a petition in the Court asking for action against these six National Political Parties for non-compliance and contempt of the 3 June 2013 order as well as its implementation; CIC’s decision that law is silent on non-compliance is not correct. CIC should go by the spirit of the law and not the letter; Preamble of the RTI act as well the Sections 18, 19 and 20 gives ample powers to CIC to take action on non-compliance by the way of levying fine and awarding compensation, CIC therefore through this order is only abrogating its own power and authority. CIC is not a court of law. It is only a quasi-judicial body. Therefore, it should not go into the technicalities of the law.’’
Venkatesh Nayak, research scholar and member of Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI) opines that the CIC has shown spinelessness through its decision and it is a big blow to the transparency. In a note put up in public view, he states, “The CIC's decision unwittingly or otherwise ends up creating an impression that it lacks the power (or 'mettle' or 'spunk' or 'spine' whichever expression you prefer) to ensure compliance with its orders.’’
Nayak says this is not the first instance where the CIC was faced with a situation of non-compliance. In 2009 when the CIC faced a similar situation where the DoPT persistently refused to comply with its order regarding providing access to "file notings", in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act. Nayak says “the CIC issued notice about launching criminal action against the DoPT under the following provisions of the Indian Penal Code: Section 166 - Public servant disobeying law with intent to cause injury to any person; Section 187 - Omission to assist public servant when bound by law to give assistance; and; Section 188 - Disobedience to order duly promulgated by a public servant. These offences invite fines and a prison term from two months to one year. When threatened with legal action, the DoPT fell in line. Incidentally, the RTI applicant in this case is also a complainant in the current political parties' non-compliance case. Strangely, the CIC does not seem to have adopted such a course of action in the current case.’’

CIC decision of 16th March

The following is decided:
(a) the respondents are not in compliance with the Commission's order of 03.06.2013 and the RTI Act. The respondents, as public authorities, have not implemented the directions contained in the Commission's order and there is no evidence of any intention to do so;

(b) the submissions made by the complainants for the imposition of penalty and the award of compensation are not allowed in view of legal considerations;

(c) the prayer for making recommendations to public authorities, reference para 68(6), above, is not allowed;
(d) a copy of this order be sent to the Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India, for taking action as deemed appropriate for addressing the legal gaps and issues that have come to light during the hearings, including those mentioned in para 68(7) above, with a view to ensuring compliance of this Commission's orders;

(e) the complainants are at liberty, in view of the facts and circumstances of this case, to approach the higher courts for appropriate relief and redressal. It is ordered that an authenticated copy of this order be sent to the parties through registered post. With this order of the Commission, the case is closed.

(Vinita Deshmukh is consulting editor of Moneylife, an RTI activist and convener of the Pune Metro Jagruti Abhiyaan. She is the recipient of prestigious awards like the Statesman Award for Rural Reporting which she won twice in 1998 and 2005 and the Chameli Devi Jain award for outstanding media person for her investigation series on Dow Chemicals. She co-authored the book “To The Last Bullet - The Inspiring Story of A Braveheart - Ashok Kamte” with Vinita Kamte and is the author of “The Mighty Fall”.)


  • Like this story? Get our top stories by email.



    Parimal Shah

    6 years ago

    The more the political parties try to hide the more their slip shows.

    Ajay Chaudhary

    6 years ago

    There is no mention of AAM AADMI PARTY in the article then where is the need to show them in the photo. Is this deliberately done to show AAP in a poor light. We expect better and unbiased journalistic standards from Moneylife.

    Ajay Chaudhary

    6 years ago

    There is no mention of AAM AADMI PARTY in the article then where is the need to show them in the photo. Is this deliberately done to show AAP in a poor light. We expect better and unbiased journalistic standards from Moneylife.


    6 years ago

    The first perk of joining India's acronymous (IAS/IPS/MLA/MP/SC/ST/LLB/MBBS etc) ruling scum is being above the law.

    Dr V S Prasanna Rajan

    6 years ago

    Submission of some suggestions with regard to the recent order of CIC conceding to the non-compliance of its order by the Political Parties

    With reference to the suggestions mentioned above and I hereby submit some of my suggestions for a way out of the non-compliance of the order of the CIC by the political parties.

    An appeal u/s 19(9) of the RTI act, 2005 can be filed by the complainants, before the CIC , to review its recent order conceding to the non-compliance of its order by the political parties along the following lines-

    1. Sections 19(7), 19(8)(a), read with section 22 of the RTI Act, 2005, permits the Central Information Commission to take appropriate legal steps to ensure the compliance of its order issued within the scheme of the RTI act.

    2. Section 14 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, empowers the CIC, to use such legal provisions as per the facts and circumstances of the case, to ensure the compliance of its orders, which
    has attained finality in law.

    3. It has been held by the Honorable Supreme court in Sakiri Vasu vs State of UP in paras.18-22 that -

    " 18. It is well-settled that when a power is given to an authority to do something it includes such incidental or implied powers which would ensure the proper doing of that thing. In other words, when any power is expressly granted by the statute, there is impliedly included in the grant, even without special mention, every power and every control the denial of which would render the grant itself ineffective. Thus where an Act confers jurisdiction it impliedly also grants the power of doing all such acts or employ such means as are essentially necessary to its execution.

    19. The reason for the rule (doctrine of implied power) is quite apparent. Many matters of minor details are omitted from legislation. As Crawford observes in his Statutory Construction (3rd edn. page 267):-

    If these details could not be inserted by implication, the drafting of legislation would be an indeterminable process and the legislative intent would likely be defeated by a most insignificant omission .

    20. In ascertaining a necessary implication, the Court simply determines the legislative will and makes it effective. What is necessarily implied is as much part of the statute as if it were specifically written therein.

    21. An express grant of statutory powers carries with it by necessary implication the authority to use all reasonable means to make such grant effective. Thus in ITO, Cannanore vs. M.K. Mohammad Kunhi, AIR 1969 SC 430, this Court held that the income tax appellate tribunal has implied powers to grant stay, although no such power has been expressly granted to it by the Income Tax Act.

    22. Similar examples where this Court has affirmed the doctrine of implied powers are Union of India vs. Paras Laminates AIR 1991 SC 696, Reserve Bank of India vs. Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Ltd AIR 1996 SC 646 (at p. 656), Chief Executive Officer & Vice Chairman Gujarat Maritime Board vs. Haji Daud Haji Harun Abu 1996 (11) SCC 23, J.K. Synthetics Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise, AIR 1996 SC 3527, State of Karnataka vs. Vishwabharati House Building Co-op Society 2003 (2) SCC 412 (at p.432) etc."

    4. Sections 166,174 of the IPC empowers the CIC to invoke such provisions to ensure the attendance of the respondents in compliance with its summons as well as to make the delinquent respondents accountable for the non-compliance of its orders.

    5. Moreover, the CIC, did not invoke the powers conferred u./s 195(1)(a)(1) CrPC to file a compliant through its secretary / registrar to the jurisdictional magistrate court for the offences u/ss 166,174,188 IPC committed by the delinquent respondents.

    6. Hence, the aforementioned facts can be highlighted in the appeal u/s 19(9) of the RTI act, 2005 before the CIC, to review its recent order conceding to the non-compliance of its order by the political parties.

    We are listening!

    Solve the equation and enter in the Captcha field.

    To continue

    Sign Up or Sign In


    To continue

    Sign Up or Sign In



    online financial advisory
    Pathbreakers 1 & Pathbreakers 2 contain deep insights, unknown facts and captivating events in the life of 51 top achievers, in their own words.
    online financia advisory
    The Scam
    28 Year Of The Scam: The Perennial Bestseller, reads like a Thriller!
    Moneylife Online Magazine
    Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance
    financial magazines online
    Stockletters in 4 Flavours
    Outstanding research that beats mutual funds year after year
    financial magazines in india
    MAS: Complete Online Financial Advisory
    (Includes Moneylife Online Magazine)