Rajya Sabha Secretariat, New DelhiDecember, 2013/Agrahayana, 1935 (Saka)
PARLIAMENT OF INDIA
DEPARTMENT-RELATED PARLIAMENTARY STANDING COMMITTEE
RAJYA SABHA
ON PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES, LAW AND JUSTICE
SIXTY SIXTH REPORT
(Presented to the Rajya Sabha on 17th December, 2013)(Laid on the Table of Lok Sabha on 17th December, 2013)
The Right to Information (Amendment) Bill, 2013
REPORT NO.
66
Website:http://rajyasabha.nic.inE-mail:[email protected]
PARLIAMENT OF INDIARAJYA SABHA
DEPARTMENT-RELATED PARLIAMENTARY STANDING COMMITTEEON PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES, LAW AND JUSTICE
SIXTY SIXTH REPORT
The Right to Information (Amendment) Bill, 2013
(Presented to the Rajya Sabha on 17th December, 2013)(Laid on the Table of Lok Sabha on 17th December, 2013)
Rajya Sabha Secretariat, New DelhiDecember, 2013/Agrahayana, 1935 (Saka)
Hindi version of this publication is also available
CS (P & L)-131
CONTENTS
PAGES
1. COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE ......................................................................................... (i)-(ii)
2. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ (iii)-(iv)
3. ACRONYMS ............................................................................................................................ (v)
4. REPORT .................................................................................................................................. 1—4
5. MINUTES OF DISSENT ............................................................................................................. 5
6. RELEVANT MINUTES OF THE MEETINGS OF THE COMMITTEE .............................................. 7—18
7. ANNEXURES ............................................................................................................................. 19—49
A. The Right to Information (Amendment) Bill, 2013 ................................................ 21—25
B. Comments of the Department of Personnel and Training on the views/suggestionscontained in Memoranda Submitted by Individuals/Organisations/Experts on theProvisions of the Bill .................................................................................................. 26—39
C. List of Persons Heard by the Committee at Delhi and during its study visit ... 40—42
D. List of Reports Presented by the Committee .......................................................... 43—49
(i)
COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE(Constituted on 31st August, 2013)
1. Shri Shantaram Naik — Chairman
RAJYA SABHA
2. Ms. Anu Aga
3. Shri Ram Jethmalani
4. Shri Sanjiv Kumar
5. Shri Parimal Nathwani
6. Shri Ram Vilas Paswan
7. Shri Sukhendu Sekhar Roy
8. Shri Ramchandra Prasad Singh
9. Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi
10. Shri Bhupender Yadav
LOK SABHA
11. Maulana Badruddin Ajmal
12. Shri T. R. Baalu
13. Shri E.T. Mohammed Basheer
14. Shri N.S.V. Chitthan
15. Shri P.C. Gaddigoudar
16. Shri D.B. Chandre Gowda
17. Shri Shailendra Kumar
18. Shri Jitender Singh Malik
19. Shri Arjun Meghwal
20. Shri Pinaki Misra
21. Shri Abhijit Mukherjee
22. Shri S.S. Ramasubbu
23. Shri S. Semmalai
24. Shri S.D. “Shariq”
25. Shrimati Meena Singh
26. Shri Vijay Bahadur Singh
27. Dr. Prabha Kishore Taviad
28. Shri Suresh Kashinath Taware
29. Shri Madhusudan Yadav
30. Vacant
31. Vacant
(ii)
SECRETARIAT
Shri Alok Kumar Chatterjee, Joint Secretary
Shri K.P. Singh, Director
Shri Ashok K. Sahoo, Joint Director
Shrimati Niangkhannem Guite, Assistant Director
Shrimati Catherine John L., Assistant Director
(iii)
INTRODUCTION
I, the Chairman of the Department-related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel,Public Grievances, Law and Justice, having been authorised by the Committee on its behalf, do herebypresent the Sixty-sixth Report on the Right to Information (Amendment) Bill, 2013. The Bill seeks toamend the Right to Information Act, 2005. (Annexure-A)
2. In pursuance of the rules relating to the Department Related Parliamentary Standing Committee,the Hon’ble Chairman, Rajya Sabha referred§ the Bill, as introduced in the Lok Sabha on the12th August, 2013 and pending therein, to this Committee on the 12th September, 2013 for examinationand report.
3. Keeping in view the importance of the Bill, the Committee issued a press communiqué innational and local newspapers and dailies, to solicit views/suggestions from desirous individuals/organisations on the provisions of the Bill. In response thereto, 39 memoranda containing suggestionswere received, from various organizations/individuals/experts, by the Committee. The views/suggestionsreceived by Committee in written memoranda alongwith comments of DoPT are at Annexure-B.
4. The Committee heard the presentation of the Secretary, Department of Personnel and Trainingon the provisions of the Bill in its meeting held on the 27th September, 2013. During its Study Visitto Chennai, Mumbai and Jaipur from 3rd to 10th October, 2013 the Committee interacted with therepresentatives of various Political Parties such as Nationalist Congress Party, Indian National Congress,All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, Communist Party of India,Bharatiya Janata Party, Bahujan Samaj Party, Communist Party of India (Marxist), Shivsena, MaharashtraNav Nirman Sena, Samajwadi Party; representatives of NGOs such as Aruna Roy, Nikhil Dey andother stakeholders on the Bill. The Committee also heard, amongst others, Shri Jagdeep Chhokar,Shri Shekhar Singh, Shri Subash Chandra Agrawal; Shri Shailesh Gandhi, former CIC; Shri NripendraMisra, Public Interest Litigation; on the 6th November, 2013 and Shri Nilotpal Basu, Communist Partyof India (Marxist) on the 27th November, 2013 (detailed list at Annexure-C).
5. The Committee also sought the views of all National and State Political Parties on the Bill.Nationalist Congress Party, Communist Party of India, Indian National Congress, Communist Party ofIndia (Marxist), Desiya Murpokku Dravida Kazhagam submitted their written comments thereon.
6. While considering the Bill, the Committee took note of the following documents/informationplaced before it:–
(i) Background note on the Bill submitted by the Department of Personnel and Training,Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions;
(ii) Cabinet Note No. 1/13/2013-IR dated the 23rd July, 2013;
(iii) Views/suggestions contained in the memoranda received from various organisations/institutions/individuals/experts on the provisions of the Bill and the comments of theDepartment of Personnel and Training thereon;
(iv) Reply furnished by the Department of Personnel and Training to questionnaire on theBill;
§ Rajya Sabha Parliamentary Bulletin Part-II (No. 51260) dated the 12th September, 2013.
(v) Reply furnished by the Department of Legal Affairs to questionnaire on the Bill;
(vi) Views expressed during the oral evidence tendered before the Committee by thestakeholders on the 6th and 27th November, 2013 and during its Study Visit;
(vii) Comments furnished by various recognized Political Parties on the Bill; and
(viii) Other research material/documents related to the Bill.
7. The Committee adopted the Report in its meeting held on the 13th December, 2013.
8. For the facility of reference and convenience, the observations and recommendations of theCommittee have been printed in bold letters in the body of the Report.
SHANTARAM NAIKNEW DELHI; Chairman,13th December, 2013 Committee on Personnel,
Public Grievances, Law and Justice
(iv)
ACRONYMS
AICC All India Congress Committee
AIR All India Radio
BJP Bharatiya Janata Party
BSP Bahujan Samajwadi Party
CIC Central Information Commission
CPIO Central Public Information Officer
CPI(M) Communist Party of India (Marxist)
CPI Communist Party of India
DOPT Department of Personnel and Training
DMDK Desiya Murpokku Dravida Kazhagam
ECI Election Commission of India
INC Indian National Congress
IT Information Technology
MLA Member of Legislative Assembly
MP Member of Parliament
NCP Nationalist Congress Party
NGO Non-Governmental Organisation
RTI Right to Information
(v)
1
REPORT
The Right to Information (Amendment) Bill, 2013 seeks to amend the Right to InformationAct, 2005 in order to nullify order of full Bench of Central Information Commission (CIC) of 3rd June,2013 (resting in File No. CIC/SM/C/2011/001386 and CIC/SM/C/2011/000838) bringing six nationalpolitical parties (AICC/INC, BJP, CPI(M), CPI, NCP and BSP) under the ambit of RTI Act by makingliberal interpretation of the term ‘public authority’ mentioned under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.
2. The Statement of Objects and Reasons appended to the Bill mentions that the political partiesare not public authorities since they are neither established nor constituted by or under the Constitutionor any other law made by Parliament. They are rather registered/recognized under the Representationof People Act, 1951 and Rules/Orders made or issued thereunder. Provisions of the Representation ofPeople Act, 1951 as well as the Income Tax Act, 1961 deal with transparency in the financial aspectsrelating to the parties and their candidates. Declaring political parties as public authority under the RTIAct would hamper their smooth internal functioning; party rivals may misuse the provisions of the RTIAct adversely affecting the functioning of political parties. Moreover, the objective of the said Act isnot to include political parties under its ambit. Since the decision of CIC is binding upon the partiesin view of Section 19(7) of the RTI Act, the Statement of Objects and Reasons has also mentionedthat aforesaid amendment to keep political parties out of ambit of the RTI Act will have retrospectiveeffect from the date of decision of CIC, i.e., 3rd June, 2013.
3. While passing the order the full Bench of the Central Information Commission set aside itssingle Bench Order of 8th July, 2009 in complaint No. CIC/MISC/2009/0001 and CIC/MISC/2009/0002wherein that Commission could not agree that political parties could fall within the definition of publicauthority as defined under Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act.
4. The CIC while arriving at its decision has primarily laid out following arguments:–
(i) Political parties can be said to have been constituted by their registration by ElectionCommission of India (ECI), a fact akin to establishment or constitution of a body orinstitution by an appropriate Government;
(ii) Substantial (indirect) financing of political parties by the Central Government in multipleways which includes allotment of land in Delhi and State capitals, Governmentaccommodation/bungalow on concessional rent in prime areas of Delhi, total exemptionof their donation from income tax under Section 13 A of Income Tax Act, 1961, freeair time on Doordarshan and All India Radio and free electoral rolls by Election Commission;
(iii) Performance of Public duties by the political parties. Being unique institution they wieldcontrolling influence directly or indirectly on the exercise of Government power in spiteof being non-governmental; and
(iv) Political parties enjoy constitutional and legal rights and liabilities.
5. The CIC has inter-alia directed six national political parties to designate Central PublicInformation Officers (CPIO) and the Appellate Authorities at the Head Quarters within six weeksperiod from the date of its order.
6. The Bill proposes insertion of an explanation to Section 2(h) of the Act to exclude all politicalparties both recognized and registered from the ambit of public authority in relation to the RTI Act.The Department of Legal Affairs in its opinion through the reply to the questionnaire to the Committeehas agreed that the ratio of the order of CIC dated the 3rd June, 2013 may be applicable to 1444 odd
2
political parties including 52 national and state political parties, if criteria laid down by it is establishedin their case.
7. The Committee noted the justification to the proposed amendment given in the Cabinet NoteNo. 1/13/2013-IR dated the 23rd July, 2013 to annul erroneous decision arrived at by CIC by liberalinterpretation of the term ‘public authority’ in relation to RTI Act:–
● Registration of political parties under Section 29 A of the RP Act, 1951 with ElectionCommission of India cannot be construed as akin to establishment or constitution of bodyor institution by an appropriate Government.
● Misuse of the Act by political rivals with malicious intention which may adversely affectsmooth functioning of political parties which is neither the object of the Act nor wasenvisaged by Parliament under the Act.
Deposition of Secretary, DOPT
8. The Secretary, DOPT, which is nodal Ministry for the Act submitted that many Non-Governmental Organizations1 have been declared as public authority in relation to RTI Act on thegrounds of substantial financing by the appropriate Government, by the judiciary. He justified theamendment to the Act on the ground that possible political misuse of the Act by political rivals whichwould destabilize the political party which is not the objective of the Act. Existing provisions in theRP Act, 1951 and the Income Tax Act, 1961 ensure transparency in the financial aspects of politicalparties. He added that all information including financial information which are not exempted underSection 8 of the Act needed to be shared if the order of CIC is not nullified.
Stand of Recognized Political Parties
9. All six national political parties expect CPI which were respondent to the CIC order of 3rd
June, 2013 were categorical in their assertion that political parties are not public authority in relationto RTI Act. The Committee sought views of all recognized national and state parties on the proposedlegislation. Till date INC, NCP, CPI, CPI(M) and Desiya Murpokku Dravida Kazhagam (DMDK) havesubmitted their views which are in support of proposed amendment. However, the BJD through itsMember in the Committee, has categorically asserted that his party firmly opposes the proposedamendment and fully supports the spirit and tenor of the CIC order.
10. By and large, the political parties are in favour of transparency in their financial matter in largerpublic interest, which according to them, already exists.
Views of Civil Society
11. The Committee gathers from the evidence submitted to the Committee that the larger view ofthe civil society is in opposition to the proposed amendment to RTI Act. They are of the view thatinformation relating to financial matter of political parties need to be shared with public as bulkfinancing to political parties is under Rs.20,000 which is not reported to Election Commission of Indiaand Income Tax Authorities and is therefore unaccounted for. Some of the political parties havereportedly been in receipt of contributions from foreign sources in contravention of Section 29B ofthe RP Act, 1951 and corresponding provision in the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010.While one Section is for transparency in functioning of political parties and sharing of informationrelating to selection/rejection of the candidates, election strategies, etc. in addition to informationrelating to financing of parties for the sake of good governance and electoral reforms, the other
1 Indian Olympic Association, Chandigarh, Lawn Tennis Association, Chandigarh Club, India International Centre, DelhiPublic School, Rohini.
3
section is interested only with the information relating to financing of political parties. However, all ofthem suggested to the committee that amendment to RTI Act is unnecessary as inbuilt provisions togive exemption to the information of competitive nature is provided under Section 8 of the Act. Theywere of the view that the information which political parties have reasons to believe to affect itsinternal functioning can be sought to be exempted. All of them have requested to the Committee torecommend to Government to withdraw the Bill in larger public interest.
Opinion of Attorney General
12. Attorney General for India in his deposition has offered following opinion:–
● Proposed amendment to RTI Act excluding Political Parties from the definition of publicauthority may not withstand constitutional challenge as it is creating a class within a classwithout having any consideration to the principle of intelligible differentia having reasonablenexus with objective of the Act (promotion of transparency and accountability).
● Political Parties are foundation of democracy and need to be given sufficient protectionfrom malicious and motivated application for which safeguards already exist underSection 8 of the Act.
Instrumentality of Government vis-a-vis instrumentality of State
13. Representatives of some political parties submitted that political parties are neither instrumentalityof Government nor funded by the Government, therefore, they cannot be treated as public authoritiesin relation to RTI Act. The Committee noted that preamble to the RTI Act clearly mentions thatGovernment and its instrumentalities are accountable to the governed for the sake of transparency andaccountability under RTI Act. Department of Legal Affairs in their replies to the questionnaire havestated that instrumentality or agency of the Government is not restricted to entities created under orby statute. A body upon which the Government has merely regulatory control could be instrument ofGovernment if that body is substantially financed by the appropriate Government either by direct orindirect manner. The judgement of Supreme Court in the Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd.Vs. State of Kerala delivered on 7th October, 2013, may be referred to wherein even privateorganizations (NGOs) which are substantially financed by the appropriate Government in direct orindirect manner are also instrument of Government and public authorities in relation to RTI Act in viewof Section 2(h)(ii) of the Act. All bodies having deep and pervasive control of Government areinstrumentalities of State. Both instrumentalities of State and Government are public authorities inrelation to RTI Act.
Substantially financed by Appropriate Government
14. Department of Legal Affairs in their reply to the questionnaire have submitted to theCommittee that funding from Consolidated Fund of India/State is not the sole criterion to determinewhether the body is substantially financed. Even financing in indirect manner i.e. grant of plot of landat concessional rate, tax exemption are also other criteria to declare a body as instrument ofGovernment in relation to RTI Act.
15. It is clarified to the Committee that political parties are voluntarily association of individuals.However, those cannot be construed as constituted or established under the law unless and until theyare registered under the Act(s) of Parliament/State Legislature. The Department of Legal Affairs havesubmitted that there is no legal bar to any association of individuals without being registered with ECIto contest election. Registration with Election Commission would enable political parties to get thebenefit of Part IV A of the Representation of People Act i.e. getting contribution in terms of Section29 B of the RP Act, 1951.
4
16. The Committee also noted that following provisions in other existing laws ensure adequatetransparency in respect of financial matters of political parties and their candidates which have beenstressed as grounds for not bringing political parties under RTI Act:
● Declaration of contribution received in excess of Rs.20,000/- from any individual andnon-governmental companies to Election Commission which that Commission put on itswebsite (Section 29C of the RP Act, 1951, read with Rule 85B of the Conduct of ElectionRules, 1961).
● Declaration of assets and liabilities by elected candidates for a House of Parliament(Section 75A of the RP Act, 1951).
● Maintenance of correct account of election expenditure of the candidate (Section 77 ofthe RP Act, 1951).
● Lodging of account of election expenses by the candidate with District Election Officer(Section 78 of the RP Act, 1951).
● Disqualification of the candidate for failing to lodge election expenses by ElectionCommission (Section 10A of the RP Act, 1951).
● Penalty for filing false affidavit (Section 125A of the RP Act, 1951).
● Direction from Election Commission of India to political parties to submit their accountswithin 90 days after general election in case of Lok Sabha and 75 days in case ofAssembly elections (last issued on 21st January, 2013).
● Inspection of accounts of candidate of political party and obtaining the same from ECIon payment of nominal charges (Section 88 of the RP Act, 1951).
● Declaration of assets and liabilities to the Ethics Committee of House by the Members ofParliament.
Recommendation/Observations of Committee
17. The Committee observes that the aspects of transparency of the financial matters ofthe political parties are fully covered under the laws and mechanisms as referred to above.
18. The Committee understands that none of the six political parties, who happened to berespondent to CIC Order of 3rd June, 2013, challenged the order in the higher judiciary. Thatwas an option with those political parties, which they did not exercise, as the instant case isa case of misinterpretation of a clear provision of law.
19. The present amendment has been brought by the Government with a view to resolvethe issue whether political parties are public authorities or not by specifically excluding themfrom the RTI Act so as to completely avoid the scope of ambiguity. The Committee considersthat proposed amendment is a right step to address the issue once for all. Committee,therefore, recommends for passing of the Bill.
20. In the course of deliberations, the Committee’s attention was drawn to the sustainabilityof legislation in the court of law. In this connection, Committee noted the suggestions madeby Attorney General of India vis-a-vis Law Secretary. The Attorney General of India wasapprehensive that this law would not sustain the test of judicial scrutiny as it was creating aclass within a class without having any consideration to the principle of intelligible differentiahaving reasonable nexus with objective of the Act, whereas the Law Secretary was of the viewthat it was quite sustainable since Parliament has legislative competence to override the CICdecision. The Committee, however, subscribes to the opinion expressed by the Law Secretary.
21. The Committee is of the strong view that laws should not be laid down through aprocess of misinterpretation of clear provisions of law.
5
Minutes of Dissent submitted by Ms. Anu Aga
I consider political parties to be public authorities because they get substantive financial fundingfrom the Government of India. For example:
❷ Allotment of land in prime areas of the national and state capitals at subsidised rates.
❷ Allotment of bungalows at highly subsidized rates.
❷ Free airtime on Doordarshan and All India Radio during Lok Sabha and State Assemblyelections.
❷ Tax exemption on donations.
2. Political parties compete in elections to receive a mandate from the public to form theGovernment and therefore they are very different from ordinary NGOs or media houses or indeed anyother private associations.
It is in the public interest that Political Parties disclose information about themselves to citizensbecause parties are the most essential ingredient for the functioning of our democracy, they performa public duty, they have a public function and they have a legal basis.
3. There is concern among the Political Parties that if they come under the RTI Act their rivalswill use RTI applications to get critical information and their strategies. However, under the Section8(1) (d), there is no obligation for any public authority to give to a citizen “information includingcommercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm thecompetitive position of a third party”.
To further safeguard this concern, the Supreme Court or Central Information Commission itselfcould issue a clarification with special reference to exempting a political party from voluntarydisclosure on matters that give its rivals/competitors information about its strategies.
4. There is currently very little transparency about the financial affairs of political parties. Theyare only required to submit expense reports to the Election Commission during elections, and incometax statements to the tax authorities. But more than 80% of their income is from “unknown” sources,as was revealed in a recent RTI application. Their tax exempt status is contingent on their filing taxreturns. But non-filing attracts no penalty, nor recovery of taxes. The Election Commission canregister, but not de-register or penalize parties in any way. So it is very important that their financesbe disclosed via RTI framework.
Most importantly, if political parties are to play a critical role in improving governance, theythemselves must submit to higher standards of transparency and accountability. It is of utmostimportance that financing and expenses of parties be completely transparent.
Sd/-(Anu Aga)
Member, Rajya Sabha
5
MINUTES
9
IISECOND MEETING
The Department-related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances,Law and Justice met at 3:00 P.M. on Friday, the 27th September, 2013 in Room No. G-074, ParliamentHouse Library, New Delhi.
MEMBERS PRESENT
1. Shri Shantaram Naik — Chairman
RAJYA SABHA2. Ms. Anu Aga3. Shri Ram Vilas Paswan4. Shri Sukhendu Sekhar Roy5. Shri Bhupender Yadav
LOK SABHA6. Shri E.T. Mohammed Basheer7. Shri Shailendra Kumar8. Shri Arjun Meghwal9. Shri Pinaki Misra
10. Shri S.S. Ramasubbu11. Shri Abhijit Mukherjee12. Shri Vijay Bahadur Singh13. Dr. Prabha Kishore Taviad
SECRETARIATShri Alok Kumar Chatterjee, Joint Secretary
Shri K.P. Singh, Director
Shri Ashok K. Sahoo, Joint Director
Shrimati Niangkhannem Guite, Assistant Director
Shrimati Catherine John L., Assistant Director
I. * * *
II. The Right to Information (Amendment) Bill, 2013
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions
● Department of Personnel and Training1. Dr. S.K. Sarkar, Secretary2. Shri Manoj Joshi, Joint Secretary3. Shri Sandeep Jain, Director (IR)
*** Relates to some other matter.
10
● Legislative Department1. Dr. Sanjay Singh, Additional Secretary2. Shri. Udaya Kumara, Additional Legislative Counsel3. Shri. K.V. Kumar, Deputy Legislative Counsel
2. * * *
3. * * *
4. * * *
5. * * *
6. * * *
The Right to Information (Amendment) Bill, 2013
7. The Chairman then welcomed the Secretary, Department of Personnel and Training and seniorofficials of DoPT and Legislative Department to the meeting. He then requested the Secretary to makea presentation on the Right to Information (Amendment) Bill, 2013.
8. The Secretary, while making a power point presentation on the Bill, apprised the Committeethat in the past, in a series of decisions, the High Courts and the Central Information Commission helda number of Non-Governmental Organizations as ‘Public authorities’ in relation to the Right toInformation Act, 2005 and that in its decision dated 3rd June, 2013, the Central Information Commissionheld that some Political Parties are ‘public authorities’ in relation to the RTI Act. He stated that onexamination of the said decision of the Central Information Commission, it was observed that theCentral Information Commission had made a very liberal interpretation of Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act.He opined that Political Parties are not established or constituted by or under the Constitution or byany other laws made by Parliament and that they are only registered under the Representation of thePeople Act, 1951. He further stated that there are already provisions in the Representation of thePeople Act, 1951, as well as in the Income Tax Act which ensure to necessary transparency regardingfinancial aspects of a Political Party.
9. While responding to the queries raised by the Chairman and Members of the Committee, therepresentative of Department of Personnel & Training clarified that in response to an application underthe RTI Act, every information that is not exempted under Section 8 of the Act and which is availablewith the ‘public authority’ has to be provided.
10. The Chairman and Members of the Committee expressed their reservations about the CentralInformation Commission’s decision dated 3rd June, 2013.
(The witnesses then withdrew)
11. A verbatim record of the proceedings of the meeting was kept.
12. The Committee then adjourned at 4.32 P.M.
*** Relates to some other matter.
11
VFIFTH MEETING
The Department-related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances,Law and Justice met at 11.00 A.M. on Wednesday, the 6th November, 2013 in Committee Room‘G-074’, Ground Floor, Parliament Library Building, New Delhi.
MEMBERS PRESENT
1. Shri Shantaram Naik — Chairman
RAJYA SABHA
2. Shri Ram Jethmalani
3. Shri Ram Vilas Paswan
4. Shri Sukhendu Sekhar Roy
LOK SABHA
5. Shri T.R. Baalu
6. Shri N.S.V. Chitthan
7. Shri P.C. Gaddigoudar
8. Shri Shailendra Kumar
9. Shri Arjun Meghwal
10. Shri Pinaki Misra
11. Shri Abhijit Mukherjee
12. Shri S.S. Ramasubbu
13. Shri S. Semmalai
14. Shri S.D. Shariq
15. Shrimati Meena Singh
16. Shri Vijay Bahadur Singh
17. Dr. Prabha Kishore Taviad
SECRETARIAT
Shri Alok Kumar Chatterjee, Joint Secretary
Shri K.P. Singh, Director
Shri Ashok K. Sahoo, Joint Director
Shrimati Niangkhannem Guite, Assistant Director
Shrimati Catherine John L., Assistant Director
11
12
WITNESSES:
At 11.00 A.M.
1. Association for Democratic Reforms, New Delhi;
(i) Prof. Jagdeep Chhokar
(ii) Shri Anurag Mittal
(iii) Ms. Shivam Kapoor
2. National Campaign for People’s Right to Information, New Delhi;
(i) Ms. Anjali Bharadwaj
(ii) Shri Shekhar Singh
3. Shri Subash Chandra Agrawal, New Delhi;
4. (i) Adv. Om Prakash Saxena
(ii) Shri Neeraj Saxena Ghaziabad;
(i) Shri Sanjeev Gupta
(ii) Shri Anuj Aggarwal
5. (i) Shri Kamlesh Shantilal Shah
(ii) Ms. Ankita Kamlesh Shah RTI Activists, Nagpur;
6. Shri K.K. Sharma, New Delhi;
7. Shri Kulamani Mishra, Odisha.
At 2.30 P.M.
8. Shri Shailesh Gandhi, Former Chief Information Commissioner, Mumbai;
9. Akhil Bharatiya Grahak Panchayat, Delhi;
(i) Shri B.S. Sachdeva
(ii) Dr. Jaikishan
(iii) Shri Prabhat Gujral
10. Shri Ashok Mittal, Indian Council of Universities, Mathura;
11. Shri Nripendra Misra, Public Interest Litigation, Delhi;
12. Shri Sarabjit Roy, India Against Corruption, Jan Andolan and National Campaign forPolitical Reform in India, New Delhi;
13. Adv. R.L. Saravanan, Chennai;
14. Shri V. Ramesan, Potti Sreeramulu Foundation, Andhra Pradesh; and
15. (i) Shri Rahul Kadiyan
(ii) Ms. Swati Chawla
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions
Department of Personnel and Training
Ms. Mamta Kundra, Joint Secretary.
13
2. The Chairman welcomed the Members of the Committee, witnesses and senior officers of theDepartment of Personnel and Training to the meeting. He then requested Prof. Jagdeep Chhokar toplace before the Committee, his views on the Right to Information (Amendment) Bill, 2013.
3. Prof. Jagdeep Chhokar, while tendering his views on the Bill, emphasized upon the vital roleplayed by political parties in the polity of our nation and the need to ensure transparency in thefunctioning of political parties. He drew attention of the Committee to the 170th Report of the LawCommission of India titled “Reform of the Electoral Laws” wherein it was observed that democracyand accountability must bind the political parties which are integral to parliamentary democracy.
4. Thereafter, Shrimati Anjali Bharadwaj voiced her concern about the proposed amendment to theRight to Information Act and suggested that the apprehensions of political parties that disclosure ofinformation under the RTI Act may turn out to be harmful to them, can be taken care of, by the Ruleswhich can be framed under the Act. While elucidating upon the reasons as to why political partiesshould come under the purview of the RTI Act, Shri Shekhar Singh opined that the political partiesare in receipt of public resources and that the public who have donated their money, given their hopesand support to a political party, have the right to know whether that political party is living up to theirhopes and aspirations.
5. Shri Subash Chandra Agrawal, while allaying the apprehensions raised with respect to the CICdecision dated 3rd June, 2013 opined that Section 8(1) and 7(a) of the RTI Act, 2005 are sufficientto address such concerns and that political parties need to give only that information which is availablewith them. He expressed his views that if the public authorities earnestly comply with the provisionfor suo-motu disclosure in the RTI Act, the number of applications filed under the statute woulddecrease significantly.
6. Advocate Om Prakash Saxena pointed out some incongruities, which according to him, existin certain decisions of the Central Information Commission. Shri Kamlesh Shantilal Shah, while placingon record his opposition to the proposed amendment, suggested that the best feasible alternative wasto challenge the impugned CIC decision in a Court of law.
7. Shri K.K. Sharma highlighted the instances of misuse of the RTI Act which came to his noticeduring his tenure in the Delhi Government wherein many trivial and unrelated queries raised under theAct, resulted in unnecessary wastage of manpower, time and resources. He put forth the proposal thatthe public can seek information available with the Election Commission of India and State ElectionCommission, rather than directly from the political parties. He suggested that the time period given inthe RTI Act to furnish information may be enhanced.
8. Shri Kulamani Mishra averred that the proposed amendment is an unnecessary attempt tocurtail the rights of the public to know and to act against the wrongdoing of political parties in theirfinancial management and inner party democracy.
9. The witnesses responded to the queries raised by the Members of the Committee.
(The witnesses then withdrew)
(The Committee adjourned for lunch and re-assembled at 2.30 P.M.)
10. The Chairman welcomed the witnesses and senior officers of the Department of Personnel andTraining to the meeting. He then requested Shri Shailesh Gandhi to present his views on the Right toInformation (Amendment) Bill, 2013 before the Committee.
11. Shri Shailesh Gandhi, while highlighting the benefits of the RTI Act, stated that the concernsraised about the impugned decision of CIC were unfounded and that it was high time that citizens areaccepted as the masters of the Government. He was of the view that challenging the CIC decisionin a Court of law was a better option than the proposed amendment.
14
12. Expressing his support to the CIC decision, Shri B.S. Sachdeva opined that if political partiesare excluded from the purview of the RTI Act, then NGOs would also register themselves as politicalparties to enjoy such immunity. Shri Ashok Mittal, speaking on behalf of the private universities andeducational institutions, stated that though they did not receive financial support from the Government,they had been brought under the ambit of the RTI Act, which according to him, was against theintention of the Parliament while enacting the statute. He narrated a few instances wherein RTI Actwas allegedly misused by vested interests.
13. Shri Nripendra Misra pointed out that during the debates in the House on the RTI Bill in 2009,the Government had assured that no amendments would be made unless there is wide publicconsultation and that such consultation was not done for the proposed amendment. He stated that outof the 1,450 registered political parties, only 112 of them submitted their annual financial statementsin 2012-13 and that only 56 political parties gave information about the donations received by themin 2011-12. He raised doubts about the effectiveness of the relevant provisions of the Representationof People Act, 1951 and the Income Tax Act, 1961 in ensuring financial transparency of politicalparties.
14. Shri Sarabjit Roy disagreed with the CIC decision, both in its reasoning and in its processes.He underscored the need for quick disposal of appeals pending with the CIC and the requirement ofthe full CIC Bench to decide on vial matters, such as the decision dated 3rd June, 2013. Advocate R.L.Saravaranan, while voicing his opposition to the proposed amendment, based his submissions on thepremise that the Bill violates Article 14 of the Constitution, in that it treats political parties differentlyfrom other registered associations.
15. While placing before the Committee, his views that political parties should not be made publicauthorities, Shri Rahul Kadiyan stated that the CIC has, in fact, amended the RTI Act by bringingpolitical parties under its purview and also encroached upon the powers of the Election Commissionof India. Shri V. Ramesan, while opposing the proposed amendment, dismissed fears of misuse of theRTI Act by political rivals.
16. The witnesses responded to the points put forward by the Members of the Committee.
(The witnesses then withdrew)
17. A verbatim record of the proceedings of the meeting of the Committee was kept.
18. The meeting adjourned at 4.21 P.M. to meet again at 11.00 A.M. on 13th November, 2013.
15
VISIXTH MEETING
The Department-related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances,Law and Justice met at 11.30 A.M. on Wednesday, the 27th November, 2013 in Room No. ‘63’, FirstFloor, Parliament House, New Delhi.
MEMBERS PRESENT
1. Shri Shantaram Naik — Chairman
RAJYA SABHA2. Ms. Anu Aga3. Shri Parimal Nathwani4. Shri Ram Vilas Paswan5. Shri Sukhendu Sekhar Roy6. Shri Ramchandra Prasad Singh
LOK SABHA7. Shri T.R. Baalu8. Shir P.C. Gaddigoudar9. Shri Shailendra Kumar
10. Shri Pinaki Misra11. Shri Abhijit Mukherjee12. Shri S.S. Ramasubbu13. Smt. Meena Singh14. Shri Vijay Bahadur Singh15. Dr. Prabha Kishore Taviad16. Shri Suresh Kashinath Taware
SECRETARIATShri Alok Kumar Chatterjee, Joint SecretaryShri K.P. Singh, DirectorShri Ashok K. Sahoo, Joint DirectorShrimati Niangkhannem Guite, Assistant DirectorShrimati Catherine John L., Assistant Director
WITNESSES
Representatives of Communist Party of India (Marxist)
Shri Nilotpal Basu, former M.P. and Member of the Central Secretariat of the Party
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions
(Department of Personnel and Training)
Ms. Mamta Kundra, Joint Secretary
15
16
2. The Chairman welcomed the witnesses and senior officers of the Department of Personnel andTraining to the meeting. He then requested Shri Nilotpal Basu to place before the Committee, the viewsof Communist Party of India (Marxist) on the Right to Information (Amendment) Bill, 2013.
3. Shri Nilotpal Basu drew the attention of the Committee to a decision of the Supreme Courtpronounced subsequent to the impugned order of the Central Information Commission dated 3rd June,2013. He stated in this regard that in Thalapalam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. and Others vs. Stateof Kerala 2013 STPL (Web) 818 SC, the Supreme Court has made it very clear that merely providingsubsidies, grants, exemptions, privileges, etc., as such, cannot be said to be providing funding to asubstantial extent unless the record shows that the funding was so substantial to the body whichpractically runs by such funding and but for such funding, it would struggle to exist.
4. He was of the view that the RTI Act, 2005 as passed by Parliament, did not envisage thepolitical parties, but only Government or Government agencies which are mainly utilizing public funds,to be within the ambit of the Act. He emphasized on the importance of transparency and accountabilityof political parties and suggested that the political parties should suo motu disclose financial details.He also expressed the inability to identify all individuals who contribute for the political party, especiallyin small amounts.
5. The witness responded to the queries raised by the Members of the Committee.
(The witness then withdrew)
6. The Committee then took up for consideration its draft Sixty-third and Sixty-fourth Reportson the Rajasthan Legislative Council Bill, 2013 and the Judicial Appointments Commission Bill, 2013.The Members expressed their views on the draft Reports and adopted the same with some minormodifications.
7. The Committee then authorized the Chairman and in his absence, Shri Sukhendu Sekhar Royto present the Reports in the Rajya Sabha and Shri Shailendra Kumar and in his absence, Shri AbhijitMukherjee to lay the same on the Table of the Lok Sabha, on Friday, the 6th December, 2013.
8. A verbatim record of the proceedings of the meeting of the Committee was kept.
9. The meeting adjourned at 12.48 P.M.
17
VIISEVENTH MEETING
The Department-related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances,Law and Justice met at 10.00 A.M. on Friday, the 13th December, 2013 in Committee Room ‘A’,Parliament House Annexe, New Delhi.
MEMBERS PRESENT
1. Shri Shantaram Naik — Chairman
RAJYA SABHA2. Ms. Anu Aga3. Shri Sukhendu Sekhar Roy
LOK SABHA4. Shri E.T. Mohammed Basheer5. Shri Shailendra Kumar6. Shri Pinaki Misra7. Shri Abhijit Mukherjee8. Shri S.S. Ramasubbu9. Shrimati Meena Singh
10. Shri Vijay Bahadur Singh11. Dr. Prabha Kishore Taviad
SECRETARIATShri Alok Kumar Chatterjee, Joint SecretaryShri K.P. Singh, DirectorShri Ashok K. Sahoo, Joint DirectorSmt. Niangkhannem Guite, Assistant DirectorSmt. Catherine John L., Assistant Director
2. The Chairman extended a warm welcome to all the Members. The Committee then took upfor consideration its draft Sixty-sixth Report on the Right to Information (Amendment) Bill, 2013. TheMembers expressed their views on the draft Report and adopted the same with some minormodifications. Ms. Anu Aga submitted a Note of dissent. The Committee agreed to append appropriatelythe same to the Report.
3. The Committee then authorized the Chairman and in his absence, Shri Sukhendu Sekhar Royto present the Report in the Rajya Sabha and Shri Shailendra Kumar and in his absence, Shri S.S.Ramasubbu to lay the same on the Table of the Lok Sabha, on Monday, the 16th December, 2013.
4. Thereafter, the Chairman informed the Members that the Assam Legislative Council Bill, 2013has been referred to the Committee on 11th December, 2013 for examination and report within threemonths. The Committee authorized the Secretariat to issue a Press Communique seeking views/suggestions on the Bill from the public.
17
18
5. The Committee then reviewed the status of the pending subjects/Bills. The Committee decidedto visit Kolkata and Guwahati from 19th to 23rd January, 2014 in connection with the examination ofBills viz., The Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Bill, 2013 and Assam Legislative CouncilBill, 2013. The Committee accordingly, authorized the Chairman to seek necessary permission ofHon’ble Chairman, Rajya Sabha for undertaking the said study visit.
6. The meeting adjourned at 10.30 A.M.
19
ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE-A
AS INTRODUCED IN LOK SABHA
07 May, 2012
Bill No. 112 of 2013
THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2013
A
BILL
to amend the Right to Information Act, 2005.
BE it enacted by Parliament in the Sixty-fourth Year of theRepublic of India as follows:—
1. (1) This Act may be called the Right to Information(Amendment) Act, 2013.
(2) It shall be deemed to have come into force on the 3rd dayof June, 2013.
2. In section 2 of the Right to Information Act, 2005(hereinafter referred to as the principal Act), in clause (h), thefollowing Explanation shall be inserted, namely:––
‘Explanation.—The expression “authority or body orinstitution of self-government established or constituted” byany law made by Parliament shall not include any associationor body of individuals registered or recognised as politicalparty under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.’.
3. After section 31 of the principal Act, the following sectionshall be inserted, namely:—
“32. Notwithstanding anything contained in anyjudgment, decree or order of any court or commission, theprovisions of this Act, as amended by the Right to
21
Short title andand commence-ment.
22 of 2005. Amendment ofsection 2.
Insertion ofnew section 32.
43 of 1951.
Validation.
22
Information (Amendment) Act, 2013, shall have effect andshall be deemed always to have effect, in the case of anyassociation or body of individuals registered or recognisedas political party under the Representation of the PeopleAct, 1951 or any other law for the time being in force andthe rules made or notifications issued thereunder.”.
43 of 1951.
23
23
STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS
The Right to Information Act, 2005 was enacted by theGovernment for setting out a framework for effectuating the right toinformation for citizens and to secure access to information under thecontrol of public authorities, in order to promote transparency andaccountability in the working of every public authority.
2. The Central Information Commission in one of its decisiondated 03.06.2013 has held that the political parties namely AICC/INC,BJP, CPI (M), CPI, NCP and BSP are public authorities under section2(h) of the said Act. The Government considers that the CIC hasmade a liberal interpretation of section 2(h) of the said Act in itsdecision. The political parties are neither established nor constituted byor under the Constitution or by any other law made by Parliament.Rather, they are registered or recognised under the Representation ofthe People Act, 1951 and the rules/orders made or issued thereunder.
3. It has also been observed that there are already provisions inthe Representation of the People Act, 1951 as well as in the Income-tax Act, 1961 which deals with the transparency in the financialaspects of political parties and their candidates.
4. Declaring a political party as public authority under the RTIAct would hamper its smooth internal working, which is not theobjective of the said Act and was not envisaged by Parliament underthe RTI Act. Further, the political rivals may misuse the provisions ofRTI Act, thereby adversely affecting the functioning of the politicalparties.
5. In view of above, the Government has decided to amend theRTI Act to keep the political parties out of the purview of the RTIAct, with a view to remove the adverse effects of the said decisionof the CIC. It is also necessary to give retrospective effect to theproposed amendment with effect from the date of the said decision ofCIC, that is, 3rd day of June, 2013.
6. The Bill seeks to achieve the above objects.
NEW DELHI; V. NARAYANASAMYThe 5th August, 2013.
24
24
ANNEXURE
EXTRACT FROM THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005
(22 OF 2005)
* * * * *
2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,—
* * * * *
(h) “public authority” means any authority or body orinstitution or self-government established or constituted—
(a) by or under the Constitution;
(b) by any other law made by Parliament;
(c) by any other law made by State Legislature;
(d) by notification issued or order made by theappropriate Government, and includes any—
(i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed;
(ii) non-Government organisation substantiallyfinanced,
directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriateGovernment;
* * * * *
Definitions.
25
25
LOK SABHA
A
BILL
to amend the Right to Information Act, 2005.
(Shri V. Narayanasamy, Minister of State in the Ministry of Personnel,Public Grievances and Pensions)
26
AN
NE
XU
RE
-B
DE
PAR
TM
EN
T
OF
P
ER
SON
NE
L
AN
D
TR
AIN
ING
(M/o
P
erso
nnel
, P
ubli
c G
riev
ance
s an
d P
ensi
ons)
Par
t-I:
C
omm
ents
an
d Su
gges
tion
s on
th
e B
ill
Sl.
Mem
oran
dum
Nam
e of
Com
men
ts/S
ugge
stio
nsR
espo
nse
of
Gov
ernm
ent
No.
No.
Org
anis
atio
n
12
34
5
1. 2. 3. 4.
1 2 3 4
Alo
ke K
umar
,K
olka
ta
Indi
an N
atio
nal
Con
gres
s
Com
mun
ist
Part
yof
Ind
ia
Nat
iona
list
Con
gres
s P
arty
No
Law
ca
n be
m
ade
to
have
retr
ospe
ctiv
e ef
fect
for
the
pur
pose
of s
ettin
g as
ide
any
judg
emen
t of
aco
urt
that
ha
s pr
ovid
ed
just
ice
toan
y pa
rty
in t
he c
ase.
If p
oliti
cal
part
ies
are
not
brou
ght
unde
r R
TI
Act
N
GO
s w
ould
al
sora
ise
sim
ilar
dem
and.
Polit
ical
par
ties
are
inst
rum
enta
litie
sof
the
Gov
ernm
ent
and
they
mus
tbe
acc
ount
able
to
the
Gov
ernm
ent.
Supp
ort t
he p
ropo
sal o
f po
litic
al p
artie
sou
t of
am
bit
of R
TI
Act
, 20
05.
Ava
ilin
g of
F
ree
airt
ime
duri
ngel
ectio
n tim
e ca
nnot
be
tr
eate
d as
subs
tant
ial
fund
ing.
How
ever
, re
ady
to
rev
eal
all
req
uir
ed
det
ails
rega
rdin
g Fi
nonc
es o
f th
e pa
rty.
Supp
ort
the
prop
osal
to
keep
pol
itica
lpa
rtie
s ou
t of
am
bit
of R
TI.
Bei
ng a
leg
al i
ssue
, M
/o L
aw a
nd J
ustic
e m
ay b
e co
nsul
ted.
Sinc
e no
suc
h pr
opos
al h
as b
een
rece
ived
, th
is i
ssue
has
not
been
exa
min
ed b
y th
is M
inis
try.
The
re a
re a
lrea
dy p
rovi
sion
s in
the
Rep
rese
ntat
ion
of P
eopl
eA
ct,
1951
and
the
Inc
ome-
tax
Act
, 19
61 w
hich
dea
l w
ithth
e tr
ansp
aren
cy i
n th
e fi
nanc
ial
aspe
cts
of p
oliti
cal
part
ies.
No
Com
men
ts.
The
tra
nspa
renc
y in
fin
anci
al a
spec
ts o
f th
e po
litic
al p
artie
sis
tak
en c
are
of b
y R
epre
sent
atio
n of
Peo
ple
Act
, 19
51 a
ndIn
com
e Ta
x A
ct,
1961
.
No
Com
men
ts.
27
5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
5 6 7 8 11
CPI
(M
arxi
st)
T.K
. R
anga
raja
n,M
.P.
(R.S
.)
Bai
jaya
nt ‘
Jay’
Pand
a,
M.P
. (L
.S.)
Subh
ash
Cha
ndra
Aga
rwal
Dr.
T.V
. G
ovin
dan
Nat
iona
l C
ampa
ign
for
Peop
le’s
Rig
htto
In
form
atio
n
Sup
port
s th
e pr
opos
al
to
keep
polit
ical
par
ties
out
of a
mbi
t of
RT
I.
Pow
ers
of
Ele
ctio
n C
omm
issi
onne
ed t
o be
enh
ance
d to
reg
ulat
e th
eaf
fair
s of
po
litic
al
part
ies
till
then
Bill
sho
uld
not
be p
asse
d.
Sur
rend
er
Lan
d,
Fre
e A
irti
me,
IT
exem
ptio
ns b
enef
its e
tc.
if p
oliti
cal
part
ies
do n
ot w
ant
to c
ome
unde
rR
TI
Act
.
Polit
ical
par
ties
are
inst
rum
enta
litie
sof
the
Gov
ernm
ent
and
they
mus
tbe
acc
ount
able
to
the
Gov
ernm
ent.
Can
dida
tes
of a
pol
itica
l pa
rty
are
requ
ired
to
de
clar
e th
eir
elec
tion
expe
nses
to
EC
but
are
not
aud
ited.
Eve
n if
th
e E
C
is
stre
ngth
ened
,br
ingi
ng p
oliti
cal
part
ies
unde
r R
TI
Act
is
criti
cal.
Polit
ical
par
ties
use
publ
ic r
esou
rces
and
also
hol
d in
form
atio
n w
hich
is
of p
ublic
im
port
ance
and
sho
uld
bedi
sclo
sed.
On
poin
t th
at p
oliti
cal
riva
ls m
ight
mis
use
the
pote
ntia
l of
RT
I A
ct,
apu
blic
aut
hori
ty h
as t
o pr
ovid
e on
lysu
ch i
nfor
mat
ion
whi
ch i
s av
aila
ble
in m
ater
ial
form
.
No
Com
men
ts.
Thi
s is
for
the
Min
istr
y of
Law
and
Jus
tice
and
Ele
ctio
nC
omm
issi
on t
o de
cide
.
The
re a
re a
lrea
dy p
rovi
sion
s in
the
Rep
rese
ntat
ion
of P
eopl
eA
ct,
1951
and
the
Inc
ome-
tax
Act
, 19
61 w
hich
dea
l w
ithth
e tr
ansp
aren
cy i
n th
e fi
nanc
ial
aspe
cts
of p
oliti
cal
part
ies.
The
re a
re a
lrea
dy p
rovi
sion
s in
the
Rep
rese
ntat
ion
of P
eopl
eA
ct,
1951
and
the
Inc
ome-
tax
Act
, 19
61 w
hich
dea
l w
ithth
e t
rans
pare
ncy
in t
he f
inan
cial
asp
ects
of
polit
ical
par
ties.
Thi
s is
for
the
Min
istr
y of
Low
and
Jus
tice
and
Ele
ctio
nC
omm
issi
on t
o de
cide
.
The
pos
ition
of
polit
ical
par
ties
is u
niqu
e. T
hey
are
neith
ercr
eate
d no
r es
tabl
ishe
d by
or
unde
r th
e co
nstit
utio
n. T
here
are
alre
ady
prov
isio
ns i
n th
e R
epre
sent
atio
n of
Peo
ple
Act
,19
51
and
the
Inco
me-
tax
Act
, 19
61
whi
ch
deal
w
ith
the
tran
spar
ency
in
th
e fi
nanc
ial
aspe
cts
of
poli
tica
l pa
rtie
s.Si
nce
they
wor
k in
a c
ompe
titiv
e en
viro
nmen
t w
ith o
ther
polit
ical
par
ties,
the
re i
s ev
ery
poss
ibili
ty o
f th
e m
isus
e of
RT
I A
ct b
y th
e po
litic
al r
ival
s. T
hus,
in
the
view
of
this
Min
istr
y, p
oliti
cal
part
ies
may
be
exem
pted
fro
m t
he p
urvi
ewof
the
RT
I A
ct.
28
12
34
5
12 13 14
Con
cern
s of
pol
itica
l pr
ties
may
be
addr
esse
d by
ex
pand
ing
the
scop
eof
Sec
tion
8 of
RT
I A
ct.
Polit
ical
par
ties
shou
ld b
e un
der
RT
IA
ct,
2005
. T
he c
once
rn o
f po
litic
alp
arti
es
may
b
e ad
dre
ssed
b
yex
pand
ing
the
scop
e of
Se
ctio
n 8
of
RT
I A
ct.
1. A
s th
ey a
re n
otif
ied
by t
he C
entr
alE
lect
ion
Com
mis
sion
and
;
2. E
njoy
the
ben
efits
of
tax
relie
fon
the
ir i
ncom
e.
3.
Lim
ited
ex
empt
ions
co
uld
begi
ven
to p
oliti
cal
part
ies
by e
xpan
ding
sect
ion
8 of
the
Act
.
Polit
ical
par
ties
shou
ld b
e un
der
RT
IA
ct,
2005
.
Pol
itic
al
part
ies
perf
orm
pu
blic
func
tions
to
they
mus
t be
inc
lude
din
the
def
initi
on o
f pu
blic
aut
hori
ties.
The
pos
ition
of
polit
ical
par
ties
is u
niqu
e. T
hey
are
neith
ercr
eate
d no
r es
tabl
ishe
d by
or
unde
r th
e co
nstit
utio
n. T
here
are
alre
ady
prov
isio
ns
in
the
Rep
rese
ntat
ion
of
Peo
ple
Act
, 19
51 a
nd t
he I
ncom
e-ta
x A
ct,
1961
whi
ch d
eal
with
the
tran
spar
ency
in
the
fina
ncia
l as
pect
s of
pol
itica
l pa
rtie
s.Si
nce
they
wor
k in
a c
ompe
titiv
e en
viro
nmen
t w
ith o
ther
polit
ical
par
ties,
the
re i
s ev
ery
poss
ibili
ty o
f th
e m
isus
e of
RT
I A
ct b
y th
e po
litic
al r
ival
s. T
hus,
in
the
view
of
this
Min
istr
y, p
oliti
cal
part
ies
may
be
exem
pted
fro
m t
he p
urvi
ewof
the
RT
I A
ct.
The
pos
ition
of
polit
ical
par
ties
is u
niqu
e. T
hey
me
neith
ercr
eate
d no
r es
tabl
ishe
d by
or
unde
r th
e co
nstit
utio
n. T
here
are
alre
ady
prov
isio
ns i
n th
e R
epre
sent
atio
n of
Peo
ple
Act
, 19
51an
d th
e In
com
e-ta
x A
ct, 1
961
whi
ch d
eal
with
the
tra
nspa
renc
yin
the
fin
anci
al a
spec
ts o
f po
litic
al p
artie
s. S
ince
the
y w
ork
in
a co
mpe
titiv
e en
viro
nmen
t w
ith
othe
r po
litic
al
part
ies,
ther
e is
eve
ry p
ossi
bilit
y of
the
mis
use
of R
TI
Act
by
the
polit
ical
riv
als.
Thu
s, i
n th
e vi
ew o
f th
is M
inis
try,
pol
itica
lpa
rtie
s m
ay b
e ex
empt
ed f
rom
the
pur
view
of
the
RT
I A
ct.
Sect
ion
2(h)
of
the
Act
doe
s no
t pr
ovid
e fo
r co
nditi
ons
such
as p
erfo
rman
ce o
f pu
blic
dul
y th
at m
ake
such
aut
hori
ty o
rbo
dy a
s a
publ
ic a
utho
rity
for
the
pur
pose
of
the
RT
I A
ct.
10.
11.
12.
Pros
enjit
Das
Gup
ta,
Kol
kata
J.P.
Sh
ah,
Guj
arat
Ass
ocia
tion
ofT
rans
pare
ncy
and
Ant
icor
rupt
ion
29
Roh
it K
umar
and
Oth
ers
KII
TU
nive
rsity
S.P
. M
anch
anda
,D
elhi
Shai
lesh
Gan
dhi,
Form
er I
C i
n C
IC
Akh
il B
hart
iya
Gra
hak
Panc
haya
t
13.
14.
15.
16.
15 16 17 18
Pol
itic
al
part
ies
shou
ld
not
beex
clud
ed
from
th
e R
TI
ambi
t to
sav
e th
e d
emo
crat
ic
rig
hts
o
fci
tize
ns,
to
en
sure
in
tern
alde
moc
racy
with
in t
he p
oliti
cal
part
ies
and
to e
nd t
he p
ract
ice
of b
etra
yal
afte
r th
e el
ectio
n.
The
re
are
enou
gh
prov
isio
ns
inS
ecti
on
8 to
re
fuse
in
form
atio
n.Fu
rthe
r qu
erie
s ar
e no
t an
swer
able
unde
r R
TI
Act
.
Dis
clo
sure
u
/s
4(1
) (b
) w
ou
ldre
duce
the
no.
of
RT
I ap
plic
atio
nsfi
led
with
a p
oliti
cal
part
y.
CIC
de
cisi
on
shou
ld
have
been
chal
leng
ed
in
cour
t in
stea
d of
resu
lting
to
am
endi
ng t
he L
aw.
To o
btai
n im
mun
ity f
rom
RT
I N
GO
sw
ill r
egis
ter
them
selv
es a
s po
litic
alpa
rtie
s. T
he a
men
dmen
t vi
olat
es t
he
The
pos
ition
of
polit
ical
par
ties
is u
niqu
e. T
hey
are
neith
ercr
eate
d no
r es
tabl
ishe
d by
or
unde
r th
e co
nstit
utio
n. T
here
are
alre
ady
prov
isio
ns i
n th
e R
epre
sent
atio
n of
Peo
ple
Act
,19
51
and
the
Inco
me-
tax
Act
, 19
61
whi
ch
deal
w
ith
the
tran
spar
ency
in
th
e fi
nanc
ial
aspe
cts
of
poli
tica
l pa
rtie
s,Si
nce
they
wor
k in
a c
ompe
titiv
e en
viro
nmen
t w
ith o
ther
polit
ical
par
ties,
the
re i
s ev
ery
poss
ibili
ty o
f th
e m
isus
e of
RT
I A
ct b
y th
e po
litic
al r
ival
s, T
hus,
in
the
view
of
this
Min
istr
y, p
oliti
cal
part
ies
may
be
exem
pted
fro
m t
he p
urvi
ewof
the
RT
I A
ct.
The
pos
ition
of
polit
ical
par
ties
is u
niqu
e. T
hey
are
neith
ercr
eate
d no
r es
tabl
ishe
d by
or
unde
r th
e co
nstit
utio
n, T
here
are
alre
ady
prov
isio
ns
in
the
Rep
rese
ntat
ion
of
Peo
ple
Act
, 19
51 a
nd t
he I
ncom
e-ta
x A
ct,
1961
whi
ch d
eal
with
the
tran
spar
ency
in
the
fina
ncia
l as
pect
s of
pol
itica
l pa
rtie
s.Si
nce
they
wor
k in
a c
ompe
titiv
e en
viro
nmen
t w
ith o
ther
polit
ical
par
ties,
the
re i
s ev
ery
poss
ibili
ty o
f th
e m
isus
e of
RT
I A
ct b
y th
e po
litic
al r
ival
s, T
hus,
in
the
view
of
this
Min
istr
y, p
oliti
cal
part
ies
may
be
exem
pted
fro
m t
he p
urvi
ewof
the
RT
I A
ct.
The
pos
ition
of
polit
ical
par
ties
is u
niqu
e. T
hey
are
neith
ercr
eate
d no
r es
tabl
ishe
d by
or
unde
r th
e co
nstit
utio
n. T
here
are
alre
ady
prov
isio
ns
in
the
Rep
rese
ntat
ion
of
Peo
ple
Act
, 95
1 an
d th
e In
com
e-ta
x A
ct,
1961
w
hich
de
al
with
the
tran
spar
ency
in
the
fina
ncia
l as
pect
s of
pol
itica
l pa
rtie
s.Si
nce
they
wor
k in
a c
ompe
titiv
e en
viro
nmen
t w
ith o
ther
polit
ical
par
ties,
the
re i
s ev
ery
poss
ibili
ty o
f th
e m
isus
e of
RT
I A
ct b
y th
e po
litic
al r
ival
s. T
hus,
in
the
view
of
this
Min
istr
y, p
oliti
cal
part
ies
may
be
exem
pted
fro
m t
he p
urvi
ewof
the
RT
I A
ct.
Sinc
e no
suc
h pr
opos
al h
as b
een
rece
ived
fro
m N
GO
s, s
ono
com
men
ts c
an b
e of
fere
d on
the
iss
ue.
30
12
34
5
17.
18.
19.
19 20 21
Cee
jum
Cha
ndra
n,Ja
mia
Mili
aIs
lam
ia
Seni
or C
itize
nFo
rum
Roh
ini
Moh
nish
Dan
ge
fun
dam
enta
l ri
gh
ts
of
equ
alit
y(A
rtic
le 1
4 of
the
Con
stitu
tion)
.
Pol
itic
al
part
ies
perf
orm
pu
blic
func
tions
, so
the
y m
ust
com
e un
der
RT
I.
RT
I A
ct w
ill b
ring
tra
nspa
renc
y in
the
func
tioni
ng o
f po
litic
al p
artie
s.
Po
liti
cian
s m
ust
b
e tr
eate
d
asG
over
nmen
t S
erva
nts.
Act
sh
ould
no
t be
am
ende
d to
excl
uded
po
litic
al
part
ies
from
th
eam
bit
of A
ct.
Pol
itic
al
part
ies
are
fund
ed
byG
over
nmen
t so
the
y sh
ould
be
unde
rR
TI
Act
.
Sect
ion
2(h)
of
th
e A
ct
does
no
t pr
ovid
e fo
r co
nditi
ons
such
as
perf
orm
ance
of
publ
ic d
uty
that
mak
e su
ch a
utho
rity
or b
ody
as a
pub
lic a
utho
rity
for
the
pur
pose
of
the
RT
IA
ct.
The
re a
re a
lrea
dy p
rovi
sion
s in
the
Rep
rese
ntat
ion
ofth
e Pe
ople
Act
, 19
51
and
Inco
me
Tax
Act
, 19
61
whi
chde
al w
ith t
rans
pare
ncy
in t
he f
inan
cial
asp
ects
of
polit
ical
part
ies.
The
pos
ition
of
polit
ical
par
ties
is u
niqu
e. T
hey
are
neith
ercr
eate
d no
r es
tabl
ishe
d by
or
unde
r th
e co
nstit
utio
n. T
here
are
alre
ady
prov
isio
ns
in
the
Rep
rese
ntat
ion
of
Peo
ple
Act
, 19
51 a
nd t
he I
ncom
e-ta
x A
ct,
1961
whi
ch d
eal
with
the
tran
spar
ency
in
the
fina
ncia
l as
pect
s of
pol
itica
l pa
rtie
s.Si
nce
they
wor
k in
a c
ompe
titiv
e en
viro
nmen
t w
ith o
ther
polit
ical
par
ties,
the
re i
s ev
ery
poss
ibili
ty o
f th
e m
isus
e of
RT
I A
ct b
y th
e po
litic
al r
ival
s. T
hus,
in
the
view
of
this
Min
istr
y, p
oliti
cal
part
ies
may
be
exem
pted
fro
m t
he p
urvi
ewof
the
RT
I A
ct.
The
pos
ition
of
polit
ical
par
ties
is u
niqu
e. T
hey
are
neith
ercr
eate
d no
r es
tabl
ishe
d by
or
unde
r th
e co
nstit
utio
n. T
here
are
alre
ady
prov
isio
ns
in
the
Rep
rese
ntat
ion
of
Peo
ple
Act
, 19
51 a
nd t
he I
ncom
e-ta
x A
ct,
1961
whi
ch d
eal
with
the
tran
spar
ency
in
the
fina
ncia
l as
pect
s of
pol
itica
l pa
rtie
s,Si
nce
they
wor
k in
a c
ompe
titiv
e en
viro
nmen
t w
ith o
ther
polit
ical
par
ties,
the
re i
s ev
ery
poss
ibili
ty o
f th
e m
isus
e of
RT
I A
ct b
y th
e po
litic
al r
ival
s. T
hus,
in
the
view
of
this
Min
istr
y, p
oliti
cal
part
ies
may
be
exem
pted
fro
m t
he p
urvi
ewof
the
RT
I A
ct.
31
The
pos
ition
of
polit
ical
par
ties
is u
niqu
e. T
hey
are
neith
ercr
eate
d no
r es
tabl
ishe
d by
or
unde
r th
e co
nstit
utio
n. T
here
are
alre
ady
prov
isio
ns
in
the
Rep
rese
ntat
ion
of
Peo
ple
Act
, 19
51 a
nd t
he I
ncom
e-ta
x A
ct,
1961
whi
ch d
eal
with
the
tran
spar
ency
in
the
fina
ncia
l as
pect
s of
pol
itica
l pa
rtie
s.Si
nce
they
wor
k in
a c
ompe
titiv
e en
viro
nmen
t w
ith o
ther
polit
ical
par
ties,
the
re i
s ev
ery
poss
ibili
ty o
f th
e m
isus
e of
RT
I A
ct b
y th
e po
litic
al r
ival
s. T
hus,
in
the
view
of
this
Min
istr
y, p
oliti
cal
part
ies
may
be
exem
pted
fro
m t
he p
urvi
ewof
the
RT
I A
ct.
The
pos
ition
of
polit
ical
par
ties
is u
niqu
e. T
hey
are
neith
ercr
eate
d no
r es
tabl
ishe
d by
or
unde
r th
e co
nstit
utio
n. T
here
are
alre
ady
prov
isio
ns
in
the
Rep
rese
ntat
ion
of
Peo
ple
Act
, 19
51 a
nd t
he I
ncom
e-ta
x A
ct,
1961
whi
ch d
eal
with
the
tran
spar
ency
in
the
fina
ncia
l as
pect
s of
pol
itica
l pa
rtie
s.Si
nce
they
wor
k in
a c
ompe
titiv
e en
viro
nmen
t w
ith o
ther
polit
ical
par
ties,
the
re i
s ev
ery
poss
ibili
ty o
f th
e m
isus
e of
RT
I A
ct b
y th
e po
litic
al r
ival
s. T
hus,
in
the
view
of
this
Min
istr
y, p
oliti
cal
part
ies
may
be
exem
pted
fro
m t
he p
urvi
ewof
the
RT
I A
ct.
The
pos
ition
of
polit
ical
par
ties
is u
niqu
e. T
hey
are
neith
ercr
eate
d no
r es
tabl
ishe
d by
or
unde
r th
e co
nstit
utio
n. T
here
are
alre
ady
prov
isio
ns
in
the
Rep
rese
ntat
ion
of
Peo
ple
Act
, 19
51 a
nd t
he I
ncom
e-ta
x A
ct,
1961
whi
ch d
eal
with
the
tran
spar
ency
in
the
fina
ncia
l as
pect
s of
pol
itica
l pa
rtie
s.Si
nce
they
wor
k in
a c
ompe
titiv
e en
viro
nmen
t w
ith o
ther
polit
ical
par
ties,
the
re i
s ev
ery
poss
ibili
ty o
f th
e m
isus
e of
RT
I A
ct b
y th
e po
litic
al r
ival
s. T
hus,
in
the
view
of
this
Min
istr
y, p
oliti
cal
part
ies
may
be
exem
pted
fro
m t
he p
urvi
ewof
the
RT
I A
ct.
20.
21.
22.
22 23 24
Ram
akri
shna
Gow
da
Raj
Kum
ar J
ain,
Fero
zpur
, Pu
njab
Ass
ocia
tion
for
Dam
ocra
tic
Rig
hts
Act
sh
ould
no
t be
am
ende
d to
excl
uded
pol
itica
l pa
rtie
s fr
om t
heam
bit
of A
ct.
MPs
en
joys
sa
lary
al
low
ance
s et
c.fr
om
Gov
ernm
ent
exch
eque
r th
eyar
e pu
blic
se
rvan
ts
and
so
is
the
polit
ical
par
ties.
Dis
clos
ure
of i
nfor
mat
ion
by p
oliti
cal
part
ies
wou
ld
be
in
larg
er
publ
icin
tere
st.
Tra
nsp
aren
cy
in
the
fin
anci
alas
pect
s of
po
litic
al
part
ies
is
very
low
.
Ele
ctio
n
Co
mm
issi
on
d
o
no
tsc
rutin
ize
on f
inan
cial
asp
ects
of
apo
litic
al p
arty
and
has
no
pow
er t
oim
pose
any
pen
al a
ctio
n if
par
ties
do n
ot f
ile t
heir
sub
mis
sion
s.
32
Sm
ooth
fu
ncti
onin
g of
po
liti
cal
part
ies
wil
l no
t be
af
fect
ed
asS
ecti
on
8
p
rov
ide
eno
ug
hex
empt
ions
fr
om
disc
losu
re.
Suo-
mot
u di
sclo
sure
by
po
liti
cal
part
ies
will
red
uce
the
no.
of R
TI
appl
icat
ion
file
d w
ith t
hem
.
Pol
itic
al
part
ies
are
perf
orm
ing
publ
ic
func
tions
.
Pro
pose
d am
endm
ent
wil
l re
duce
publ
ic p
artic
ipat
ion
in d
emoc
racy
and
will
be
agai
nst
the
prea
mbl
e of
the
Act
.
Art
icle
13(
2) o
f th
e C
onst
itutio
n ba
rsth
e st
ate
and
its
inst
rum
enta
liti
esfr
om
m
akin
g
any
la
w
wh
ich
infr
inge
s th
e Fu
ndam
enta
l R
ight
s as
ensh
rine
d in
the
Con
stitu
tion.
12
34
5
Sect
ion
2(h)
of
th
e A
ct
does
no
t pr
ovid
e fo
r co
nditi
ons
such
as
Perf
orm
ance
of
publ
ic d
uty
that
mak
e su
ch a
utho
rity
or b
ody
as a
pub
lic a
utho
rity
for
the
pur
pose
of
the
RT
IA
ct.
Thi
s is
a
lega
l is
sue
and
M/o
L
aw
and
Just
ice
may
be
cons
ulte
d.
33
Par
t-II
: O
ther
Is
sues
no
t C
over
ed
by
the
Bil
l
Sl.
Mem
oran
dum
Nam
e of
Com
men
ts/S
ugge
stio
nsR
espo
nse
of
Gov
ernm
ent
No.
No.
Org
anis
atio
n/In
divi
dual
12
34
5
1. 2. 3.
9 10 25
Indi
an C
ounc
il of
Uni
vers
ities
Nee
raj
Saxe
na,
Sanj
eev
Gup
ta a
ndA
nuj
Agr
awal
Shaf
i M
oham
mad
,H
yder
abad
Pri
vate
un
iver
siti
es
and
priv
ate
educ
atio
nal
inst
itute
s sh
ould
als
o be
kept
out
of
RT
I A
ct,
2005
.
Med
ia s
houl
d be
bro
ught
und
er R
TI
Act
.
Rea
sons
fo
r se
ekin
g in
form
atio
nm
ust
be m
ade
man
dato
ry.
Tim
e pe
riod
for
whi
ch i
nfor
mat
ion
coul
d be
ask
ed m
ust
be f
ixed
.
Mr.
S
axen
a h
ad
mad
e ce
rtai
nco
mpl
aint
s ag
ains
t th
e w
orki
ng
ofC
entr
al I
nfor
mat
ion
Com
mis
sion
.
Bri
ng
new
s pa
pers
, m
edia
ho
uses
also
u
nd
er
the
amb
it
of
RT
IA
ct,
2005
.
All
thes
e su
gges
tions
req
uire
an
amen
dmen
t to
the
RT
I A
ct,
whi
ch t
he G
over
nmen
t is
not
con
side
ring
at
pres
ent,
othe
rth
an
the
prop
osed
am
endm
ent.
The
C
entr
al
Info
rmat
ion
Com
mis
sion
is
an
in
depe
nden
tst
atut
ory
body
. T
he g
ener
al s
uper
inte
nden
ce,
dire
ctio
n an
dm
anag
emen
t of
th
e af
fair
s of
th
e C
entr
al
Info
rmat
ion
Com
mis
sion
ves
ts i
n th
e C
hief
Inf
orm
atio
n C
omm
issi
oner
,w
ho i
s as
sist
ed b
y th
e In
form
atio
n C
omm
issi
oner
s.
The
su
gges
tion
re
quir
es
an
amen
dmen
t to
th
e R
TI
Act
whi
ch t
he G
over
nmen
t is
not
con
side
ring
at
pres
ent,
othe
rth
an
the
prop
osed
am
endm
ent.
34
Com
men
ts
and
Sugg
esti
ons
on
the
Bil
l
Sl.
Mem
oran
dum
Nam
e of
Com
men
ts/S
ugge
stio
nsR
espo
nse
of
Gov
ernm
ent
No.
No.
Org
anis
atio
n
12
34
5
1. 2.
26 27
Con
sum
er U
nity
and
Tru
st
Soci
ety
(CU
TS)
Ank
ita S
hah
Pol
itic
al
part
ies
perf
orm
pu
blic
func
tions
so
they
mus
t be
inc
lude
din
the
def
initi
on o
f pu
blic
aut
hori
ties.
Bri
ngin
g th
e po
litic
al p
artie
s un
der
RT
I A
ct
wil
l en
han
ce
inte
rnal
dem
ocra
cy i
n th
e fu
nctio
ning
of
the
part
ies.
Peo
ple
ar
e in
tere
sted
in
th
efu
ncti
onin
g of
po
liti
cal
part
ies
incl
udin
g fi
nanc
ial
aspe
cts.
Dec
isio
n of
th
e C
IC
shou
ld
have
been
cha
lleng
ed i
n th
e C
ourt
of
Law
inst
ead
of G
over
nmen
t re
sort
ing
toam
endi
ng t
he L
aw.
Tra
nspa
renc
y w
ill
curb
th
e us
e of
blac
k m
oney
use
d by
the
pol
itica
lpa
rtie
s.
Sec
tio
n
8
wil
l ta
ke
care
o
fco
mpe
titiv
e po
sitio
n of
the
pol
itica
lpa
rtie
s.
Sect
ion
2(h)
of
the
Act
doe
s no
t pr
ovid
e fo
r co
nditi
ons
such
as p
erfo
rman
ce o
f pu
blic
dut
y th
at m
ake
such
aut
hori
ty o
rbo
dy a
s a
publ
ic a
utho
rity
for
the
pur
pose
of
the
RT
I A
ct.
The
re a
re a
lrea
dy p
rovi
sion
s in
the
Rep
rese
ntat
ion
of P
eopl
eA
ct,
1951
and
the
Inc
ome-
tax
Act
, 19
61 w
hich
dea
l w
ithth
e tr
ansp
aren
cy i
n th
e fi
nanc
ial
aspe
cts
of p
oliti
cal
part
ies.
The
pos
ition
of
polit
ical
par
ties
is u
niqu
e. T
hey
are
neith
ercr
eate
d no
r es
tabl
ishe
d by
or
unde
r th
e co
nstit
utio
n. T
here
are
alre
ady
prov
isio
ns
in
the
Rep
rese
ntat
ion
of
Peo
ple
Act
, 95
1 an
d th
e In
com
e-ta
x A
ct,
1961
w
hich
de
al
with
the
tran
spar
ency
in
the
fina
ncia
l as
pect
s of
pol
itica
l pa
rtie
s.
Sinc
e th
ey w
ork
in a
com
petit
ive
envi
ronm
ent
with
oth
erpo
litic
al p
artie
s, t
here
is
ever
y po
ssib
ility
of
the
mis
use
ofR
TI
Act
by
the
polit
ical
riv
als.
Thu
s, i
n th
e vi
ew o
f th
isM
inis
try,
pol
itica
l pa
rtie
s m
ay b
e ex
empt
ed f
rom
the
pur
view
of t
he R
TI
Act
.
The
pos
ition
of
polit
ical
par
ties
is u
niqu
e. T
hey
are
neith
ercr
eate
d no
r es
tabl
ishe
d by
or
unde
r th
e co
nstit
utio
n. T
here
are
alre
ady
prov
isio
ns
in
the
Rep
rese
ntat
ion
of
peop
leA
ct,
1951
and
the
Inc
ome-
tax
Act
, 19
61 w
hich
dea
l w
ith
35
Gau
rav
Gup
ta
Kal
uman
i M
ishr
a
Con
sum
er
Car
eSo
ciet
y
G.
Sund
aram
R.L
. Sa
rvan
am
Fin
anci
al
aspe
ct
shou
ld
be
mor
etr
ansp
aren
t.
Rep
rese
ntat
ive
of P
eopl
e A
ct 1
951
and
Inco
me
Tax
A
ct,
1961
ar
eto
othl
ess
so f
ar a
s fi
nanc
ial
aspe
cts
of t
he p
oliti
cal
part
ies
are
conc
erne
d.
Pol
itic
al
part
ies
perf
orm
pu
blic
func
tions
, so
sho
uld
be u
nder
RT
IA
ct.
In
view
of
P
ara
1(c)
of
te
nth
sche
dule
of
th
e C
onst
itut
ion,
th
ep
oli
tica
l p
arti
es
are
inv
aria
bly
cons
titu
ted
unde
r th
e co
nsti
tuti
on,
so s
houl
d be
pub
lic a
utho
ritie
s.
Supp
ort
the
amen
dmen
t.
Po
liti
cal
par
ties
sh
ou
ld
hav
ech
alle
nged
the
ord
er o
f C
IC i
n co
urt
of
Law
in
stea
d of
re
sort
ing
to
the
amen
dmen
t in
the
Act
.
the
tran
spar
ency
in
the
fina
ncia
l as
pect
s of
pol
itica
l pa
rtie
s.Si
nce
they
wor
k in
a c
ompe
titiv
e en
viro
nmen
t w
ith o
ther
polit
ical
par
ties,
the
re i
s ev
ery
poss
ibili
ty o
f th
e m
isus
e of
RT
I A
ct b
y th
e po
litic
al r
ival
s. T
hus,
in
the
view
of
this
Min
istr
y, p
oliti
cal
part
ies
may
be
exem
pted
fro
m t
he p
urvi
ewof
the
RT
I A
ct.
The
tra
nspa
renc
y in
fin
anci
al a
spec
ts o
f th
e po
litic
al p
artie
sis
tak
en c
are
of b
y R
epre
sent
atio
n of
Peo
ple
Act
, 19
51 a
ndIn
com
e Ta
x A
ct,
1961
.
Thi
s is
fo
r th
e M
inis
try
of
Law
an
d Ju
stic
e,
Ele
ctio
nC
omm
issi
on a
nd M
inis
try
of F
inan
ce t
o de
cide
.
Sect
ion
2(h)
of
th
e A
ct
does
no
t pr
ovid
e fo
r co
nditi
ons
such
as
perf
orm
ance
of
publ
ic d
uty
that
mak
e su
ch a
utho
rity
or b
ody
as a
pub
lic a
utho
rity
for
the
pur
pose
of
the
RT
IA
ct.
Thi
s is
fo
r th
e M
inis
try
of
Law
an
d Ju
stic
e to
de
cide
.In
divi
dual
pol
itica
l pa
rty
is n
ot c
onst
itute
d by
the
Con
stitu
tion
of I
ndia
.
No
Com
men
ts
The
pos
ition
of
polit
ical
par
ties
is u
niqu
e. T
hey
are
neith
ercr
eate
d no
r es
tabl
ishe
d by
or
unde
r th
e co
nstit
utio
n. T
here
are
alre
ady
prov
isio
ns i
n th
e R
epre
sent
atio
n of
Peo
ple
Act
,19
51
and
the
Inco
me-
tax
Act
, 19
61
whi
ch
deal
w
ith
the
tran
spar
ency
in
th
e fi
nanc
ial
aspe
cts
of
poli
tica
l pa
rtie
s.Si
nce
they
wor
k in
a c
ompe
titiv
e en
viro
nmen
t w
ith o
ther
3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
28 29 30 31 32
36
12
34
5
If
polit
ical
pa
rtie
s do
no
t w
ant
toco
me
unde
r R
TI
Act
th
ey
shou
ldsu
rren
der
the
bene
fit
gran
ted
toth
em.
Dem
ands
w
ould
co
me
from
ot
her
quar
ters
al
so
for
exem
ptio
ns
from
the
RT
I A
ct.
polit
ical
par
ties,
the
re i
s ev
ery
poss
ibili
ty o
f th
e m
isus
e of
RT
I A
ct b
y th
e po
litic
al r
ival
s. T
hus,
in
the
view
of
this
Min
istr
y, p
oliti
cal
part
ies
may
be
exem
pted
fro
m t
he p
urvi
ewof
the
RT
I A
ct.
The
re a
re a
lrea
dy p
rovi
sion
s in
the
Rep
rese
ntat
ion
of P
eopl
eA
ct,
1951
and
the
Inc
ome-
tax
Act
, 19
61 w
hich
dea
l w
ithth
e tr
ansp
aren
cy i
n th
e fi
nanc
ial
aspe
cts
of p
oliti
cal
part
ies.
Sin
ce
no
such
pr
opos
al
has
been
re
ceiv
ed
from
N
on-
Gov
ernm
enta
l or
gani
satio
ns/b
odie
s, t
he i
ssue
has
not
bee
nex
amin
ed.
37
Com
men
ts
and
Sugg
esti
ons
on
the
Bil
l
Sl.
Mem
oran
dum
Nam
e of
Com
men
ts/S
ugge
stio
nsR
espo
nse
of
Gov
ernm
ent
No.
No.
Org
anis
atio
n
12
34
5
1. 2.
33 34
Akh
il B
hart
iya
Gra
hak
Panc
haya
t
TR
AP
The
re a
re s
uffi
cien
t pr
ovis
ions
und
ersu
b-se
ctio
n of
th
e R
TI
Act
w
here
unde
sire
d qu
erie
s ca
n be
dec
lined
.
NG
Os
wil
l re
gist
er
them
selv
es
asPo
litic
al p
artie
s an
d en
joy
imm
unity
from
R
TI
Act
.
Pol
itic
al
part
ies
perf
orm
pu
blic
func
tions
, so
sho
uld
be u
nder
RT
IA
ct.
Dec
isio
n of
th
e C
1C
shou
ld
have
been
cha
lleng
ed i
n th
e C
ourt
of
Law
inst
ead
of G
over
nmen
t re
sort
ing
toam
endi
ng t
he L
aw.
Tra
nspa
renc
y w
ill
curb
th
e us
e of
blac
k m
oney
use
d by
the
pol
itica
lpa
rtie
s.
The
pos
ition
of
polit
ical
par
ties
is u
niqu
e. T
hey
are
neith
ercr
eate
d no
r es
tabl
ishe
d by
or
unde
r th
e co
nstit
utio
n. T
here
are
alre
ady
prov
isio
ns
in
the
Rep
rese
ntat
ion
of
Peo
ple
Act
, 19
51 a
nd t
he I
ncom
e-ta
x A
ct,
1961
whi
ch d
eal
with
the
tran
spar
ency
in
the
fina
ncia
l as
pect
s of
pol
itica
l pa
rtie
s.Si
nce
they
wor
k in
a c
ompe
titiv
e en
viro
nmen
t w
ith o
ther
polit
ical
par
ties,
the
re i
s ev
ery
poss
ibili
ty o
f th
e m
isus
e of
RT
I A
ct b
y th
e po
litic
al r
ival
s. T
hus,
in
the
view
of
this
Min
istr
y, p
oliti
cal
part
ies
may
be
exem
pted
fro
m t
he p
urvi
ewof
the
RT
I A
ct.
Sinc
e no
suc
h pr
opos
al h
as b
een
rece
ived
, th
is i
ssue
has
not
been
exa
min
ed b
y th
is M
inis
try.
Sect
ion
2(h)
of
th
e A
ct
does
no
t pr
ovid
e fo
r co
nditi
ons
such
as
perf
orm
ance
of
publ
ic d
uty
that
mak
e su
ch a
utho
rity
or b
ody
as a
pub
lic a
utho
rity
for
the
pur
pose
of
the
RT
IA
ct.
The
pos
ition
of
polit
ical
par
ties
is u
niqu
e. T
hey
are
neith
ercr
eate
d no
r es
tabl
ishe
d by
or
unde
r th
e co
nstit
utio
n. T
here
are
alre
ady
prov
isio
ns i
n th
e R
epre
sent
atio
n of
Peo
ple
Act
,19
51
and
the
Inco
me-
tax
Act
, 19
61
whi
ch
deal
w
ith
the
tran
spar
ency
in
th
e fi
nanc
ial
aspe
cts
of
poli
tica
l pa
rtie
s.Si
nce
they
wor
k in
a c
ompe
titiv
e en
viro
nmen
t w
ith o
ther
polit
ical
par
ties,
the
re i
s ev
ery
poss
ibili
ty o
f th
e m
isus
e of
RT
I A
ct b
y th
e po
litic
al r
ival
s. T
hus,
in
the
view
of
this
Min
istr
y, p
oliti
cal
part
ies
may
be
exem
pted
fro
m t
he p
urvi
ewof
the
RT
I A
ct.
38
12
34
5
3. 4. 5. 6.
35 36 37 38
K.K
. Sh
arm
a
Indi
an C
ounc
il of
Uni
vers
ities
Des
iya
Mur
pokk
uD
ravi
da K
azha
gam
Com
mun
ist
Part
yof
Ind
ia
Info
rmat
ion
Soug
ht u
nder
RT
I A
ctsh
ould
· be
su
ppli
ed
by
Pol
itic
alP
arti
es
to
Ele
ctio
n C
omm
issi
on,
cent
re o
r st
ate,
as
the
case
may
be,
who
sh
ould
su
pply
th
e sa
me
toin
form
atio
n se
eker
.
Supp
ort
the
RT
I (a
men
dmen
t) B
ill,
2013
Supp
ort
the
RT
I (a
men
dmen
t) B
ill,
2013
Supp
ort
the
RT
I (a
men
dmen
t) B
ill,
2013
The
pro
posa
l ne
eds
sepa
rate
exa
min
atio
n.
No
com
men
ts.
No
com
men
ts.
No
com
men
ts.
39
Com
men
ts
and
Sugg
esti
ons
on
the
Bil
l
Sl.
Mem
oran
dum
Nam
e of
Com
men
ts/S
ugge
stio
nsR
espo
nse
of
Gov
ernm
ent
No.
No.
Org
anis
atio
n
12
34
5
1.39
Gov
ind
N.
Shan
thar
am
and
Ven
kate
sh N
ayak
Pol
itic
al
part
ies
perf
orm
pu
blic
func
tions
so
they
mus
t be
inc
lude
din
the
def
initi
on o
f pu
blic
aut
hori
ties.
The
re
is
not
enou
gh
tran
spar
ency
in t
he f
inan
cial
asp
ects
of
polit
ical
part
ies.
Publ
ic A
utho
rity
, as
de
fine
d un
der
sect
ion
2(h)
of
th
e R
TI
Act
, is
a
broa
der
term
th
an
the
‘Sta
te’
asde
fine
d un
der
Art
icle
12
of
th
eC
onst
itutio
n.
In
othe
r w
ords
, it
ispo
ssib
le t
hat
an e
ntity
may
fal
l sh
ort
of b
eing
'St
ate'
and
yet
may
be
a'P
ublic
Aut
hori
ty' u
nder
the
RT
I A
ct.
Sect
ion
2(h)
of
th
e A
ct
does
no
t pr
ovid
e fo
r co
nditi
ons
such
as
perf
orm
ance
of
publ
ic d
uty
that
mak
e su
ch a
utho
rity
or b
ody
as a
pub
lic a
utho
rity
for
the
pur
pose
of
the
RT
IA
ct.
The
re a
re a
lrea
dy p
rovi
sion
s in
the
Rep
rese
ntat
ion
of P
eopl
eA
ct,
1951
and
the
Inc
ome-
tax
Act
, 19
61 w
hich
dea
l w
ithth
e tr
ansp
aren
cy i
n th
e fi
nanc
ial
aspe
cts
of p
oliti
cal
part
ies.
The
de
fini
tion
of
“S
tate
” ba
sed
on
Art
icle
12
of
th
eC
onst
itutio
n of
Ind
ia a
nd H
on'b
le S
upre
me
Cou
rt's
judg
emen
tin
B.
Has
san
Ali
Kha
n V
s. D
irec
tor
of H
ighe
r E
duca
tion,
And
hra
Prad
esh,
(1
987)
4
Rep
orts
19
8 (A
P)
date
d 23
rdJa
nuar
y,
1987
(W
P N
o.
3065
of
19
78)
- w
ould
in
clud
epa
ram
eter
s su
ch a
s ‘s
ubst
antia
l fi
nanc
ial
aid’
, ‘c
ontr
ol b
yth
e G
over
nmen
t’,
‘per
form
ance
of
pu
blic
fu
ncti
ons'
an
d‘e
ntru
stm
ent
of
gove
rnm
enta
l ac
tivi
ties
’.
All
of
th
ese
para
met
ers
are
not
esse
ntia
l an
d in
a p
artic
ular
cas
e, o
ne o
ra
com
bina
tion
of m
ore
than
one
of
them
may
suf
fice
.
The
def
initi
on o
f ‘p
ublic
aut
hori
ty’
unde
r Se
ctio
n 2(
h) (
a)of
th
e R
TI
Act
, 20
05
mea
ns
the
auth
orit
y or
bo
dy
orin
stitu
tion
of s
elf
Gov
ernm
ent
esta
blis
hed
or c
onst
itute
d by
or
unde
r th
e C
onst
itut
ion.
T
he
poli
tica
l pa
rtie
s ar
e no
tes
tabl
ishe
d or
con
stitu
ted
by o
r un
der
the
Con
stitu
tion
and
thus
wou
ld n
ot b
e in
clud
ed i
n th
e de
fini
tion
of S
ectio
n 2(
h)(a
) of
the
RT
I A
ct,
2005
.
40
ANNEXURE-C
LIST OF PERSONS HEARD BY THE COMMITTEE AT DELHI AND DURING ITS STUDY VISIT
A. DELHI
1. Association for Democratic Reforms, New Delhi
(i) Prof. Jagdeep Chhokar
(ii) Shri Anurag Mittal
(iii) Ms. Shivam Kapoor
2. National Campaign for People’s Right to Information, New Delhi
(i) Ms. Anjali Bharadwaj
(ii) Shri Shekhar Singh
3. Shri Subash Chandra Agrawal, New Delhi
4. (i) Adv. Om Prakash Saxena
(ii) Shri Neeraj Saxena Ghaziabad
(i) Shri Sanjeev Gupta
(ii) Shri Anuj Aggarwal
5. (i) Shri Kamlesh Shantilal Shah
(ii) Ms. Ankita Kamlesh Shah RTI Activists, Nagpur
6. Shri K.K. Sharma, New Delhi
7. Shri Kulamani Mishra, Odisha
8. Shri Shailesh Gandhi, Former Chief Information Commissioner, Mumbai
9. Akhil Bharatiya Grahak Panchayat, Delhi
(i) Shri B.S. Sachdeva
(ii) Dr. Jaikishan
(iii) Shri Prabhat Gujral
10. Shri Ashok Mittal, Indian Council of Universities, Mathura
11. Shri Nripendra Misra, Public Interest Litigation, Delhi
12. Shri Sarabjit Roy, India Against Corruption, Jan Andolan and National Campaign forPolitical Reform in India, New Delhi
13. Adv. R.L. Saravanan, Chennai
14. Shri V. Ramesan, Potti Sreeramulu Foundation, Andhra Pradesh
40
41
15. (i) Shri Rahul Kadiyan
(ii) Ms. Swati Chawla
16. Shri Nilotpal Basu, former M.P. and Member of the Central Secretariat of the Party,Communist Party of India (Marxist)
B. CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU
1. Shri N. Parameshwara Murthy Bahujan Samaj Party
2. Shri N.V. Subramanian Nationalist Congress Party
3. Shri Americai V. Narayan Indian National Congress
4. Shri Paul Manoj Pandian AIADMK
5. Shri T.K.S. Elenagovan, M.P. DMK
6. Dr. G.R. Ravindran Communist Party of India
7. Shrimati Vanathi Srinivasan Bhartiya Janta Party
8. Dr. R. Afzal Bahujan Samaj Party
9. Shri Panchachi Moorthy Bahujan Samaj Party
10. Shri A.S. Abdul Malik Bahujan Samaj Party
11. Shri N. Prabakaran Nationalist Congress Party
12. Shri S.M. Hidayathulla Indian National Congress
13. Shri T.K. Rangaraja Communist Party of India (Marxist)
C. MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA
1. Shri Vijay Kumbheer Surajya Sangharsh Samithi
2. Shri Dolpphy D’souza Police Reforms Watch
3. Shri Bhasker Prabhu Mahila Adhikar Manch
4. Shri Maruti S. Salunkhe Shiv Sena
5. Shri Sudhaker P. Sunar Shiv Sena
6. Shri Mahesh Aimace Yashada
7. Shri Shirish G. Sawant Maharashtra Nav Nirman Sena
8. Shri Rajesh P. Sharma Indian National Congress
9. Dr. Arjun Chikhale Yashada
10. Shri V.G. Gyan Bahujan Samaj Party, Mumbai
11. Shri A.S. Kulli Bahujan Samaj Party, Mumbai
12. Shri Abdul Qadir Choudhary Samajawad Party, Mumbai
13. Shri R.G. Aman Member, GAD, Mantralaya
14. Shri K.M. Deshpande Member, GAD, Mantralaya
D. JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN
1. Shrimati Aruna Roy Social Activist
2. Shri Nikhil Dey Social Activist
42
3. Shri Bharwar Meghwanshi Social Activist
4. Shrimati Mamata Jailtely Social Activist
5. Shrimati Renuka Pameeha RTI Activist
6. Shri Rajendra Bhanawat Doosra Dashak
7. Shri Radhakant People’s Union for Civil Liberties
8. Shri Narendra Acharya Communist Party of India
9. Shri Tara Singh Sidhu Communist Party of India
10. Shri Ravinder Shukla Communist Party of India (Marxist)
43
ANNEXURE-D
LIST OF THE REPORTS OF THE DEPARTMENT-RELATED PARLIAMENTARYSTANDING COMMITTEE ON PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES, LAW AND JUSTICE
43
ReportNo.
1
Subject of the Report
2
Date of Presentation
3
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
Report on Demands for Grants (2004-05)of the Ministry of Personnel, PublicGrievances and Pensions.
Report on Demands for Grants (2004-05)of the Ministry of Law and Justice.
Report on the Right to Information Bill,2004.
Report on the Andhra Pradesh LegislativeCouncil Bill, 2004.
Report on Demands for Grants (2005-06)of the Ministry of Personnel, PublicGrievances and Pensions.
Report on Demands for Grants (2005-06)of the Ministry of Law and Justice.
Report on the Hindu Succession(Amendment) Bill, 2004.
Report on the Scheduled Castes, ScheduledTribes and other Backward Classes(Reservation in Posts and Services) Bill, 2004.
Report on the Arbitration and Conciliation(Amendment) Bill, 2003.
Presented to Rajya Sabha on 26.08.2004and Laid on the Table of Lok Sabha on26.08.2004.
-do-
Presented to Rajya Sabha on 21.03.2005and Laid on the Table of Lok Sabha on21.03.2005.
Presented to Rajya Sabha on 24.03.2005and Laid on the Table of Lok Sabha on24.03.2005.
Presented to Rajya Sabha on 20.04.2005and Laid on the Table of Lok Sabha on20.04.2005.
-do-
Presented to Rajya Sabha on 13.05.2005and Laid on the Table of Lok Sabha on13.05.2005.
Presented to Hon’ble Chairman, Rajya Sabhaon 29th June, 2005 and forwarded to Hon’bleSpeaker, Lok Sabha on 29th June, 2005.
Presented to Rajya Sabha on 26.07.2005 andLaid on the Table of Lok Sabha on 26.07.2005.
Presented to Rajya Sabha on 04.08.2005and Laid on the Table of Lok Sabha on04.08.2005.
44
1 2 3
10th
11th
12th
13th
14th
15th
16th
17th
18th
19th
20th
21st
Report on the High Court and SupremeCourt Judges (Salaries and Conditions ofService) Amendment Bill, 2005.
Report on the National Tax Tribunal Bill,2004.
Report on the Contempt of Courts(Amendment) Bill, 2004
Report on the Prevention of Child MarriageBill, 2004.
Report on Demands for Grants (2006-07)of the Ministry of Personnel, PublicGrievances and Pensions.
Report on Demands for Grants (2006-07)of the Ministry of Law and Justice.
Report on the Representation of the People(Amendment) Bill, 2006.
Report on the Administrative Tribunals(Amendment) Bill, 2006.
Report on the Electoral Reforms(Disqualification of persons fromcontesting elections on framing of chargesagainst them for certain offences)
Report on Demands for Grants (2007-08)of the Ministry of Personnel, PublicGrievances and Pensions.
Report on Demands for Grants (2007-08)of the Ministry of Law and Justice.
Report on the Judges (Inquiry) Bill, 2006,Ministry of Law and Justice (Departmentof Justice).
Presented to Rajya Sabha on 04.08.2005and Laid on the Table of Lok Sabha on04.08.2005.
-do-
Presented to Rajya Sabha on 29.08.2005and Laid on the Table of Lok Sabha on29.08.2005.
Presented to Rajya Sabha on 29.11.2005and Laid on the Table of Lok Sabha on29.11.2005.
Presented to Rajya Sabha on 22.05.2006and Laid on the Table of Lok Sabha on22.05.2006.
-do-
Presented to Rajya Sabha on 04.08.2006and Laid on the Table of Lok Sabha on04.08.2006.
Presented to Rajya Sabha on 05.12.2006and Laid on the Table of Lok Sabha on05.12.2006.
Presented to Rajya Sabha on 15.03.2007and Laid on the Table of Lok Sabha on15.03.2007.
Presented to Rajya Sabha on 10.05.2007and Laid on the Table of Lok Sabha on14.05.2007.
-do-
Presented to Rajya Sabha on 17.08.2007and Laid on the Table of Lok Sabha on17.08.2007.
45
22nd
23rd
24th
25th
26th
27th
28th
29th
30th
31st
32nd
1 2 3
Report on the Gram Nyayalayas Bill, 2007,Ministry of Law and Justice, LegislativeDepartment.
Report on the Government’s Policy ofAppointment on Compassionate GroundMinistry of Personnel, Public Grievancesand Pensions (Department of Personneland Training)
Report on Working of Central Bureau ofInvestigation (CBI) Ministry of Personnel,Public Grievances and Pensions(Department of Personnel and Training)
Report on Demands for Grants (2008-09)of the Ministry of Personnel, PublicGrievances and Pensions.
Report on Demands for Grants (2008-09)of the Ministry of Law and Justice.
Report on Action Taken Replies on Law’sDelays : Arrears in Courts(85th Report of Home Affairs)
Report on The Supreme Court (Numberof Judges) Amendment Bill, 2008
Report on Public Grievances RedressalMechanism
Report on Constraints Being Faced byKendriya Bhandar
Action Taken Replies of the Governmenton the Recommendations/observationscontained in the 25th Report on Demandsfor Grants (2008-09) of the Ministry ofPersonnel, Public Grievances and Pensions
Action Taken Replies of the Governmenton the recommendations/observationscontained in the 26th Report on Demandsfor Grants (2008-09) of the Ministry ofLaw and Justice
Presented to Rajya Sabha on 06.09.2007and Laid on the Table of Lok Sabha on06.09.2007.
Presented to Rajya Sabha on 07.09.2007and Laid on the Table of Lok Sabha on07.09.2007.
Presented to Rajya Sabha on 11.03.2008and Laid on the Table of Lok Sabha on11.03.2008.
Presented to Rajya Sabha on 29.04.2008and Laid on the Table of Lok Sabha on29.04.2008.
-do-
-do-
Presented to the Hon’ble Chairman, RajyaSabha on 04.08.2008.Laid on the Tables of the Rajya Sabhaand Lok Sabha on 22nd October, 2008
Presented to Rajya Sabha on 23.10.2008and Laid on the Table of Lok Sabha on23.10.2008.
-do-
Presented to Rajya Sabha on 19.12.2008and Laid on the Table of Lok Sabha on19.12.2008.
Presented to Rajya Sabha on 19.12.2008and Laid on the Table of Lok Sabha on19.12.2008.
46
1 2 3
Report on the Representation of the People(Second Amendment) Bill, 2008
Report on the High Court and SupremeCourt Judges (Salaries and Conditions ofService) Amendment Bill, 2008.
Report on the “Action Taken Replies ofthe Government on the recommendations/observations contained in the 29th Reportof the Committee on “Public GrievancesRedressal Mechanism”
Report on “The Constitution (One Hundredand Eighth Amendment) Bill, 2008”.
Action Taken Replies of the Governmenton the recommendations/observationscontained in the 24th Report on “Workingof Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)”
Report on Demands for Grants (2010-11)of the Ministry of Personnel, PublicGrievances and Pensions.
Report on Demands for Grants (2010-11)of the Ministry of Law and Justice.
Report on The Personal Laws(Amendment) Bill, 2010.
Report on Action Taken Replies of theGovernment on the recommendations/observations contained in the 23rd Reportof the Committee on “Government’s Policyof Appointment on Compassionate Ground”.
Report on Action Taken Replies of theGovernment on the recommendations/observations contained in the 30th Reportof the Committee on “Constraints BeingFaced by Kendriya Bhandar”.
Report on Action Taken Replies of theGovernment on the recommendations/
Presented to Rajya Sabha on 18.02.2009and Laid on the Table of Lok Sabha on18.02.2009.
Presented to Rajya Sabha on 18.02.2009and Laid on the Table of Lok Sabha on18.02.2009.
Presented to Rajya Sabha on 17.12.2009and Laid on the Table of Lok Sabha on17.12.2009.
Presented to Rajya Sabha on 17.12.2009and Laid on the Table of Lok Sabha on17.12.2009.
Presented to Rajya Sabha on 9.03.2010and Laid on the Table of Lok Sabha on9.03.2010.
Presented to Rajya Sabha on 29.04.2010and Laid on the Table of Lok Sabha on29.04.2010.
-do-
Presented to Rajya Sabha on 04.08.2010and Laid on the Table of Lok Sabha on04.08.2010.
-do-
Presented to Rajya Sabha on 29.11.2010and Laid on the Table of Lok Sabha on29.11.2010.
-do-
33rd
34th
35th
36th
37th
38th
39th
40th
41st
42nd
43rd
47
observations contained in the 38th Reporton Demands for Grants (2010-11) of theMinistry of Personnel, Public Grievancesand Pensions.
Report on The Constitution (One Hundredand Fourteenth Amendment) Bill, 2010.
Report on The Marriage Laws(Amendment) Bill, 2010.
Report on The Public Interest Disclosureand Protection to Persons Making theDisclosures Bill, 2010
Report on the Judicial Standards andAccountability Bill, 2010
Report on the Lokpal Bill, 2011.
The Administrators-General (Amendment)Bill, 2011
The Prevention of Bribery of ForeignPublic Officials and Officials of PublicInternational Organisations Bill, 2011
Report on Demands for Grants (2012-13)of the Ministry of Personnel, PublicGrievances and Pensions.
Report on Demands for Grants (2012-13)of the Ministry of Law and Justice.
Report on The Right of Citizens for TimeBound Delivery of Goods and Servicesand Redressal of their Grievances Bill, 2011
Report on The Administrative Tribunals(Amendment) Bill, 2012.
Presented to Rajya Sabha on 9.12.2010and Laid on the Table of Lok Sabha on9.12.2010.
Presented to Rajya Sabha on 1.03.2011and Laid on the Table of Lok Sabha on1.03.2011.
Presented to the Hon’ble Chairman, RajyaSabha on 09.06.2011.Laid on the Tables of the Rajya Sabha on11.08.2011 and Lok Sabha on 10.08.11.
Presented to Rajya Sabha on 30.08.2011and Laid on the Table of Lok Sabha on30.08.2011.
Presented to Rajya Sabha on 9.12.2011 andLaid on the Table of Lok Sabha on 9.12.2011.
Presented to the Hon’ble Chairman, RajyaSabha on 02.02.2012.Laid to Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha on20.03.2012.
Presented to Rajya Sabha on 29.03.2012and Laid on the Table of Lok Sabha on29.03.2012.
Presented to Rajya Sabha on 21.05.2012and Laid on the Table of Lok Sabha on21.05.2012.
-do-
Presented to Rajya Sabha on 28.08.2012and Laid on the Table of Lok Sabha on28.08.2012.
Presented to Rajya Sabha on 17.12.2012and Laid on the Table of Lok Sabha on17.12.2012.
1 2 3
44th
45th
46th
47th
48th
49th
50th
51st
52nd
53rd
54th
48
1 2 3
Report on The Registration of Births andDeaths (Amendment) Bill, 2012
Action Taken Replies of the Governmenton the recommendations/observationscontained in the 51st Report on Demandsfor Grants (2012-13) of the Ministry ofPersonnel, Public Grievances and Pensions
Action Taken Replies of the Governmenton the recommendations/observationscontained in the 52nd Report on Demandsfor Grants (2012-13) of the Ministry ofLaw and Justice
Report on Demands for Grants (2013-14)of the Ministry of Law and Justice.
The Readjustment of Representation ofScheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribesin Parliamentary and Assembly Consti-tuencies Bill, 2013
Report on the Demands for Grants (2013-14) of the Ministry of Personnel, PublicGrievances and Pensions.
Report on the “Electoral Reforms-Codeof Conduct for Political Parties & AntiDefection Law”
Report on the “Status of WomenGovernment Employees, Service Conditions,Protection against exploitation, Incentivesand other related Issues”
Report on the Rajasthan Legislative CouncilBill, 2013
Presented to Rajya Sabha on 27.02.2013and Laid on the Table of Lok Sabha on27.02.2013.
Presented to Rajya Sabha on 21.03.2013and Laid on the Table of Lok Sabha on20.03.2013.
-do-
Presented to Rajya Sabha on 25.04.2013and Laid on the Table of Lok Sabha on26.04.2013
Presented to Rajya Sabha on 2.05.2013and Laid on the Table of Lok Sabha on2.05.2013
Presented to Rajya Sabha on 3.05.2013and Laid on the Table of Lok Sabha on3.05.2013
Presented to Rajya Sabha on 26.08.2013and Laid on the Table of Lok Sabha on26.08.2013
Presented to Rajya Sabha on 30.08.2013and Laid on the Table of Lok Sabha on30.08.2013
Presented to Rajya Sabha on 09.12.2013and Laid on the Table of Lok Sabha on09.12.2013
55th
56th
57th
58th
59th
60th
61th
62nd
63rd
49
1 2 3
64th
65th
66th
Report on the Judicial AppointmentsCommission Bill, 2013
Report on the Representation of the People(Second Amendment and Validation)Bill, 2013
Report on the Right to Information(Amendment) Bill, 2013
Presented to Rajya Sabha on 09.12.2013and Laid on the Table of Lok Sabha on09.12.2013
Presented to Rajya Sabha on 09.12.2013and Laid on the Table of Lok Sabha on09.12.2013
Presented to Rajya Sabha on 17.12.2013and Laid on the Table of Lok Sabha on17.12.2013
Printed at : Bengal Offset Works, 335, Khajoor Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005.
![Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Amendment Bill 2006 · Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Amendment Bill 2006 ... (Forensic Procedures) Amendment Bill 2006 ... Act 2000 Schedule 1 [22] Section](https://static.documents.pub/doc/80x56/5b84bfb97f8b9aec488cde46/crimes-forensic-procedures-amendment-bill-2006-crimes-forensic-procedures.jpg)
