Should Political Parties Be Classified as Public Authorities?

Author: Rahul Meena, Symbiosis Law School, Pune

Abstract

Political parties are essential to democratic systems as they determine governance and affect public policy. The primary aim of this paper is to ascertain whether political parties should be classified as public authorities, considering their management of public resources, capacity to affect electoral processes, and function in governance. The paper will affirmatively address the research question by analyzing and contrasting statutes, common law principles pertaining to democracy, and relevant case studies. The paper will contend that political parties ought to be regarded as public authorities concerning public policy and access to information legislation, resulting in increased transparency, accountability, and public confidence in political representatives, while necessitating meticulous attention to autonomy and operational independence.

Introduction

Political parties are needed for democracy to work. They make policies, pick candidates, and keep an eye on public resources when they are in charge. But, Their legal status is not fully public or fully private because they are not fully public or fully private is frequently unclear. This essay examines whether political parties ought to be categorized as public authorities, which generally involves rigorous accountability and transparency standards, such as those mandated by freedom of information (FOI) legislation. The study analyzes democratic theory, comparative case studies, and legal precedents to assess the merits and drawbacks of this classification.

Questions

A. What would happen to the independence and openness of political parties if the RTI Act made them public authorities?

B. What are the real-world problems that make it hard for political parties to use RTI provisions, and how can these be fixed to make politicians more accountable?

Objectives

Legal and Constitutional Evaluation: Determine if political parties should be classified as public authorities under the RTI Act.

Democratic Consequences: Investigate how designating parties as public authorities could enhance trust in the government and the public.

Provide a Transparency Framework: Make suggestions that will work to make sure the party is responsible while following moral and legal rules.

Defining Public Authority: Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, 2005 defines what a public authority is.

It includes:

-Any body, authority, or institution of self-government that has been set up or made:

-by or in accordance with the Constitution,

-by any law passed by the Parliament or State Legislature,

-by a notice sent out by the government,

AND organizations that get a lot of money directly or indirectly from the government.

Political Parties as Government Bodies

Funding and Public Resources: Political parties get money from the government to run their businesses campaigns and programs to teach voters about the issues in many democracies. Germany, for instance Political parties in India get money from the government based on how well they do in elections and gives free airtime to public broadcasters during elections. This kind of funding means that the public interest in their operations, which means that they need to be watched over like public authorities. Taxpayers can hold people's authority accountable for how they use these funds if they are open about it.

Part in Democratic Governance

Political parties are not just private groups; they are important for democracy to work. They choose candidates, make laws, and use state power when they are in office, politics. The South African Constitutional Court has said that parties are very important to the democratic process, which means that what they do is open to the public because their internal public would be able to see how things like funding or choosing candidates worked, which would lower the risks.

If they were named public authorities, there would be less chance of corruption or undue

influence.

Public Interest and Transparency

People have the right to know how the institutions that shape public policy work. Scandals in India's opaque electoral bond scheme and the UK 2006 Cash for Honours controversy show how important it is for party financing and decision-making to be clear. If political parties were named as such, faith in democratic institutions would grow up under FOI laws giving citizens the right to see information about donations made to public authorities spending and talks within the company.

Implications of Putting Political Parties of Public Authority In RTI 2005 Has These Effects

i. Legal Framework: To recognize political parties in public authorities under the RTI Act of India, amend Section 2(h) or issue a notice regarding government funding, including tax incentives. speed up Supreme Court petitions to clear up sensitive data exemptions and put an end to the 2013 CIC decision. A multi-party committee made up of ECI and NGOs should make sure that everyone agrees on the compliance guidelines issued by the CIC within six to twelve months.

ii. Administrative Setup: Give smaller parties money and make them name Public Information Officers (PIOs). The DoPT should then train these people. Set up a CIC/ECI RTI portal that the ECI can check for disclosures and make sure that digital record-keeping is the same across the board. This setup can be done in six to twelve months because there aren’t many resources.

iii. Transparency Mechanisms: Require quarterly financial, public benefit, and candidate

selection disclosures; however, RTI Section 8 allows for exceptions for strategic information. To gain people trust, put data on the RTI portal and party websites for everyone to see within three to six months.

Iv. Monitoring Enforcement: CIC will deal with complaints and punish people who don’t follow the rules, while ECI will do compliance audits every year. Work with NGOs like ADR to keep an eye on things. This system of enforcement that makes sure people are held accountable can be put in place in six to twelve months.

v. Public Awareness: Use the media to spread the information about the benefits of RTI, hold workshops on how to file a query led by NGOs, and include RTI in civics classes. These efforts to get people involved can start in three to six months.

vi. Ethical Implications: Political parties have a moral duty to be honest and open to public because they work for the good of the people. RTI coverage could help build public trust and internal democracy, but some people might be worried that it could be used for political harassment and to reveal private internal tactics.

vii. Social Effects: Exposing political parties and RTI would make democracy stronger, give voters have more power, and cut down on corruption. But if the right safeguards aren’t put in place, the RTI process could also become political.

viii. Evaluation: Do yearly reviews of CIC-ECI compliance and get feedback through surveys. To ensure effectiveness and adaptability, pilot policy modifications predicated on outcomes will commence following a year.

Landmark Judgement

1. Central Information Commission Decision (CIC, 2013) – Subhash Chandra Agrawal Anil Bairwal v. Six National Political Parties.

Facts: 2010 to 2011 RTI activists Subhash Chandra Agrawal and Anil Bairwal filed applications to six national political parties (INC, BJP, CPI(M), CPI, NCP, and BSP) to get details about their election promises, how they get money, and how they spend it. Their reply is they were political parties and said no because they were not public authorities.

Decision: On June 3, 2013, a full bench of the CIC said that these political parties were public authorities under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. The CIC said that parties do public duties that are important for democracy and get a lot of money from the government (through tax breaks, free land, and media time). It told the parties to choose Public Information Officers (PIOs) and follow their RTI duties.

2. Indian National Congress (I) v. Institute of Social Welfare (2002).

Facts: There was a disagreement about the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) registering under Section 29A of the case came about because of the Representation of the People Act of 1951. By saying that AAP was committing fraud petitioner challenged the Election Commission (ECI) due to registration and procedural errors decision.

Decision: The Supreme Court said that the ECI registers political parties in a way that is not quite like a court made it clear that the ECI could not act unless fraud or forgery was shown under Section 29A does not have the explicit power to deregister a party for violating constitutional provisions. The court indirectly supported the need for openness in party operations by saying there is fraud involved, ECI registration decisions could be challenged.

3. Association for Democratic Reforms Anr v. Union of India (2017)

Facts: The legality of electoral bonds, which allow for covert donations to political parties, the nonprofit Common Cause filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) against the parties. The person who asked for it said that the plan hurts the transparency of political funding, which is a violation of citizens' rights to know. The Supreme Court acknowledged transparency concerns in the interim orders but did not immediately say no to the proposal. It stressed how important it is for politicians to be more responsible for money and told the ECI to gather information on donations made through electoral bonds. The court is stressing the public right to know about party finances in this ongoing case.

Important News Reports

a. Hindustan Times (August 2013 and April 2019) – Legislative Pushback and Supreme Court Developments the government moved quickly after the 2013 Central Information Commission (CIC) decision that said national parties were public authorities under the RTI Act. The Union Cabinet approved an amendment to the RTI Act in August 2013 that aimed to take political parties out of the definition of public authority. This was done because they were worried that competitors might abuse the law. But the bill died because activists and lawmakers were so against it. BJP leader Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) to make political parties public authorities in order to make things more open. The Supreme Court sent a notice to the Center and the Election Commission of India (ECI) about the PIL in April 2019, years later.

b. Economic and Political Weekly (June 22, 2013) – Editorial Support for the CIC Ruling

Stressing the importance of responsibility and their important role in India’s democracy, the editorial in Economic and Political Weekly backed the Central Information Commission (CIC). The 2013 decision to apply the Right to Information (RTI) Act to political parties. The editorial criticized the parties for not being open and stressed how much money they could make from it, including tax breaks and constitutional power. It framed this as a necessity for democracy and said that being open in government is the key to building trust and cutting down on corruption in party finances, especially when it comes to electoral bonds. This editorial still has an effect on talks between academics and activists about how to make political parties more open operations.

c. The Indian Express (April 2021 and August 2023) – Ongoing Legal Battles and Elections, The Indian Express reported on a 2015 Supreme Court petition filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and Subhash Chandra Agrawal as part of its coverage of the Ongoing legal efforts to make political parties follow the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The Supreme Court looked into electoral bonds because people were worried about how they were funded. In August 2023, there were petitions to classify parties as public authorities. A newspaper report says that there are worries about transparency because a large party donations, especially those under ₹20,000, don’t get reported to the Election Commission of India (ECI). As the use of electoral bonds grows, so do calls for more party issue and shows how political funding and the RTI are connected when it comes to money.

Important Journal Article

“Political Parties under RTI” – Economic and Political Weekly, June 22, 2013:

This editorial in the Economic and Political Weekly (Vol. 48, No. 25, June 22, 2013) backs the CIC 2013 decision that named six national political parties as public authorities under the RTI Act. These parties have important government funding (tax breaks, free media airtime, subsidized land) and democratic duties (nominating candidates). It stresses the parties quasi- constitutional status under the Tenth Schedule and calls their opposition to RTI a threat to transparency. The article, which had a big impact on activist speech and legal challenges like the 2015 ADR petition says that the ruling should be enforced to fight corruption. Wikipedia and a LinkedIn article say it’s real, and you can find it in the EPW archives (you may need to

subscribe).

“Right To Information And Political Parties: A Case Of Transparency”-

In the Journal of Indian Law and Society (Vol. 5, Monsoon Issue, 2014), Venkatesh Nayak

writes that political parties are public authorities because they govern and get money from the

government (through land allotments, tax breaks, and electoral rolls). This means that RTI

transparency is necessary to fight black money. It calls for clearer laws, criticizes the failed 2013

RTI Amendment Bill, and compares India to countries with laws that require parties to disclose

information, like the UK.

STUDY OF COMPARATIVE:

UNITED KINGDOM:

The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act (PPERA) 2000 sets rules for political

parties in the United Kingdom and need money to be clear. UK parties are different from Indian parties by reporting campaign spending and submitting financial information, you can make sure that the public has access to donations over £7,500 every three months, and audited accounts.

Parties are not directly covered by the Freedom of Information Act, but the PPERA requirements for transparency serve a similar purpose. India can learn from the UK model, which shows how requiring candidates to say where their money comes from can make voters more confident without taking away party independence and maybe even ease concerns about the lack of transparency in electoral bonds.

UNITED STATES AMERICAN:

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act and the Federal Election Campaign Act have set up strict rules for political parties in the US. Parties need to be honest about their money matters, even though they aren’t subject to the Freedom of Information Act like the government is agencies are they rely on private donations and have to send in financial reports of campaign spending, statements, and donations over $200 to the Federal Election Commission. The FEC also makes sure that rules like not accepting donations from foreigners are followed limits on contributions and bans. Even though Super PACs and other groups give dark money, presents a challenge, but the US system generally puts a lot of value on being responsible and clear. This is important for countries like India that want to improve their own campaign finance laws strategy may teach

Us important things.

Analysis

This paper looks into the difficult question of whether Indian political parties should be seen as public authorities, finding a balance between the need to keep political and the need for organizations to be independent and open. India democracy is based on political parties, which have an impact on policy and government. Their job is different from that of Public authorities, on the other hand, are mostly focused on advocacy and campaigning rather than running a business or managing resources, unless they work for the government. One of the goals of putting political parties under the watchful eye of the public is to make them more accountable public authorities, especially when it comes to how they handle elections and money. This could promote openness and cut down on corruption. But putting political parties under the spotlight is looked at the same way as government agencies could take away their freedom and independence because they are private groups that have the constitutional right to form groups and run for office. Parties are not directly responsible for public administration unless they are in power. It is very important to tell the difference between running for office and actually running the country. Taking care of parties acting as public authorities, they could lose their independence and set a bad example for too much power in government control over political processes, even though there is a strong case for more transparency, especially when it comes to money in politics. The most reasonable thing to do seems to be a comprehensive strategy that ensures funding transparency while preserving their fundamental freedoms.

Suggestion

Three Most Important and Useful Suggestions for Political Parties and the Public Authority Status in India.

1. Framework for Targeted Transparency

Implement a customized transparency framework that mandates the public disclosure of

financial materials (in full, whether all donations, spending amounts, or funding sources) and basic standards for choosing candidates rather than turning political parties into public entities under the RTI Act. This method cuts down on the number of administrative problems or RTI abuses, especially for smaller parties, but it makes sure that people are held accountable for some important issues, like funding, criminalized without giving up any tactical thoughts on the inside.

2. Make the Election Commission oversight stronger

The Election Commission of India (ECI) should use stricter rules to make things more open, like needed independent party financial audits and real-time reporting of donations and election funds checking to see if candidate selection practices are in line with ethical standards. By working through the ECI in the current framework, RTI reclassification is not required, which makes it easier to act on and fill in the gaps left by the public trust and financial openness.

3. Legislative Clarity On Public Authority Status

Add other transparency requirements, like making public financial reports mandatory,

and change the RTI Act to make it clear that political parties are not public authorities. This legislative option sets up a democratic process and makes sure that changes are made in the same way for everyone across India, a variety of political situations exist, which makes the law unclear and limits judicial overreach, and finding a balance between accountability and party autonomy.

Conclusion

The RTI Act of 2005 said that political parties in India were public authorities. It is important to stress that there should be a good balance between autonomy and openness. One could say that protocol rules protect the parties so that full RTI applicability made an incomplete bureaucratic structure that allowed the party to be attacked on issues that are not at all related to public business, and in the process, hurting the party's independence would be at risk of being undermined, and there were definitely ways for abuse to happen on a large scale, and other problems. Still, it is important to be clear about who is responsible for funding and making decisions in a democratic India. Legislation that is clearer demarcation, better supervision powers from the ECI, and ways to be more open that might be suitable would give people options that would meet their expectations of transparency that doesn’t hurt the diversity and strength that come with having multiple levels of political competition. If these suggestions are followed, they could help parties work together freely as long as it reduces corruption, and more openness in politics funding could make people trust the Indian political system more.

References

Statutes & International Legal Documents:

The Right to Information Act, No. 22 of 2005, Acts of Parliament, 2005 (India).
The Freedom of Information Act 2000, c. 36 (U.K.).

Judicial Decisions:

Assoc. for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India & Ors., 2 S.C.R. 420, 2024 INSC 113 (India).
Indian Nat’l Cong. (I) v. Inst. of Soc. Welfare & Ors., (2002) 5 SCC 685 (India).
NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958) (U.S.).
The Constitutional Court of South Africa, Various Judgments on Political Parties and Democracy (n.d.).

Institutional & Government Reports:

Central Info. Comm’n (India), Political Parties Decision under RTI Act (2013).
Eur. Ct. H.R., Article 11: The Right to Gather and Join (n.d.).
Council of Europe, Rules for Regulating Political Parties (2003).

Web Sources (Accessed on June 5 or 6, 2025):