Skip to main content

Non-resident Indians sign online petition to President to cover political parties under RTI

 
Over 700 non-resident Indians and citizens have signed onto an online petition addressed to the President of India, expressing their support for the decision of the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) on June 3, 2013, to bring six national political parties of India under the purview of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Since the national political parties receive substantial funding from the government for their functioning, they were deemed by the CIC as public authorities, under Sections 2(a) and 2(h)(d) of the RTI Act.
All the six political parties have issued statements rejecting the CIC ruling; but instead of challenging the decision in the courts, the Government of India is "hastily planning to issue an ordinance or bring a bill to amend the RTI Act". A statement issued by Association for India's Development (AID), a US-based NGO of NRIs to promote the voluntary sector in India, said, "The petitioners have expressed their outrage at such an attempt to surreptitiously amend the RTI Act through an ordinance. According to Article 123 of the Constitution, promulgation of an ordinance is carried out only in matters of great urgency."
Displaying dismay at how these political parties have come together to deny citizens their right to seek information about their functioning, Debosree Roy, a volunteer with AID, and a graduate student from Charlotte, has said, “Right to information is a fundamental right of the Indian citizenry. In that substance, we, as citizens have a right to transparent information on the mechanisms, processes and decision trajectories and outcomes of all institutions that shape our everyday life."
Roy adds, "We feel that the CIC's order to include all political parties under the ambit of the RTI Act is justified and needful. In a Republic, public demands should be given top priority, sans which the very core of our democracy will be rendered hollow. It is our plea and our demand at the same time that you defer from dismissing the amendment sought.”
Emphasizing the important role that political parties play in a democratic republic, SrinivasNaga Chadaram, a board member of AID and a healthcare professional working in Durham, said, “Political parties share the responsibility of representing people in a democracy therefore they are public organizations. As our representatives, we expect them to be transparent and accountable to the people they represent."
He added, "Therefore, I oppose the expulsion of political parties from the RTI act, and request the President, the Prime minister, and all political parties to refrain from making any changes to the RTI act. I will file an RTI application to all parties to explain how they arrived at the decision that they don't come under RTI Act.”
AID has been actively involved in the RTI movement and partnered with several grassroots organizations and leading RTI activists in generating awareness among people across India on the effective use of RTI. One example of a widely successful initiative supported by AID has been the “RTI on Wheels”, a Mahiti Adhikar Gujarat Pahel (MAGP), Ahmedabad, initiative, which is a mobile multimedia van that has taken RTI to rural villages in remote corners of India, and truly empowered people at the grassroots. AID also played a key role in setting up of the online RTI applications with the Indian embassy for NRIs in USA.
"AID stands in solidarity with all the people’s struggles and RTI groups like MAGP and National Campaign for People’s Right to Information (NCPRI) involved in safeguarding the fundamental tenets of transparency and accountability, essential for a vibrant democracy to function", the AID statement concludes.

Comments

TRENDING

A Hindu alternative to Valentine's Day? 'Shiv-Parvati was first love marriage in Universe'

The other day, I was searching on Google a quote on Maha Shivratri which I wanted to send to someone, a confirmed Shiv Bhakt, quite close to me -- with an underlying message to act positively instead of being negative. On top of the search, I chanced upon an article in, imagine!, a Nashik Corporation site which offered me something very unusual.  I don't know who owns this site, for there is nothing on it in the About Us link. It merely says, the Nashik Corporation  site   "is an educational and news website of the municipal corporation. Today, education and payment of tax are completely online." It goes on to add, "So we provide some of the latest information about Property Tax, Water Tax, Marriage Certificate, Caste Certificate, etc. So all taxpayer can get all information of their municipal in a single place.some facts about legal and financial issues that different city corporations face, but I was least interested in them."  Surely, this didn't interest...

Beyond the 'plum' posting: Why the caste lens still defines bureaucratic success

Following my recent blog on former IAS bureaucrat Atanu Chakraborty’s sudden exit as non-executive chairman of HDFC Bank, a few colleagues from the Gujarat cadre — mostly those I interacted with during my Gandhinagar stint (1997–2012) as the Times of India representative — reacted rather sharply. Most of them sent their responses directly on WhatsApp, touching upon on the merits and demerits of Chakraborty’s controversial move. One former IAS officer, a Dalit, however, went further, raising a broader question: why do some officials like Chakraborty secure plum post-retirement assignments, while others are overlooked?

Blaming RTE, not underfunding: Education groups hit back at NITI Aayog working paper

A preliminary working paper by Arvind Virmani, economist and member of the Government of India think tank NITI Aayog, has concluded that the Right to Education (RTE) Act — enacted to guarantee free and compulsory schooling for children between six and fourteen — has actually worsened learning outcomes rather than improved them. The paper, published in March 2026 and reported by The Print on 16 April, has drawn sharp pushback from education rights advocates, who argue it builds a politically motivated narrative against constitutionally guaranteed entitlements.