Supreme Court To Hear Pleas In April To Bring Political Parties Under RTI

The Supreme Court, on Friday, presided over a set of petitions seeking the classification of all recognized political parties as “public authorities” under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

A bench led by the Chief Justice of India and Justice Sanjay Kumar directed all parties to conclude their pleadings, scheduling the hearing for the week beginning April 21.

The central legal issue under deliberation pertains to whether national and regional political parties should be subject to the transparency obligations stipulated in the RTI Act. The petitioners, including the Association for Democratic Reforms, argue that political parties benefit from significant state-conferred advantages—such as tax exemptions and land grants—which, in turn, necessitate adherence to public accountability standards through the RTI framework.

Among the respondents are major political entities such as the Indian National Congress and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

The petitioners substantiate their claims by invoking past rulings of the Central Information Commission (CIC) in 2013 and 2015, which held that political parties, due to their extensive public functions and state-derived privileges, fall within the scope of the RTI Act.

The CIC’s determination was based on the foundational principle that transparency in political institutions is an essential precondition for democratic integrity and accountability.

While the Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPI-M) supports financial transparency within political organizations, it opposes the imposition of RTI mandates on internal decision-making processes, including candidate selection. CPI(M) asserts that while financial disclosures are justifiable, the party’s strategic deliberations must remain outside the purview of the RTI Act.

The Central government, countering the petitioners’ claims, contended that the CIC’s rulings cannot serve as a legal basis for the Supreme Court to mandate the inclusion of political parties under the RTI Act’s jurisdiction.

Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, one of the petitioners, argued that under Section 29C of the Representation of the People Act, political parties are required to report all received donations to the Election Commission of India, reinforcing their status as entities of public significance.

He urged the Court to interpret the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution in conjunction with Sections 29A, 29B, and 29C of the Representation of the People Act (RPA), thereby establishing political parties as “public authorities” under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.

Furthermore, the petition highlighted the Election Commission of India’s extensive regulatory authority, which includes the power to allocate and revoke election symbols, particularly in instances of violations of the Model Code of Conduct.

This regulatory oversight, petitioners argue, further substantiates the public nature of political parties. Additionally, the petition emphasized that tax exemptions granted to political entities constitute a form of indirect public financing, thereby aligning them with the statutory definition of “public authority” under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.

Upadhyay’s petition also seeks judicial directives mandating that all registered and recognized political parties designate Public Information Officers and Appellate Authorities and ensure compliance with RTI disclosure requirements within a four-week timeframe.