The Indian Constitution, when adopted, mirrored the soul of Indian Democracy on a healthy balance of ‘a process of checks and balances’ that its different wings exercise on each-other, notably the Indian Parliament, the Judiciary and the autonomous constitutional entities like the Election Commission (EC) or the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) or the Central Information Commission (CIC).

There are many other institutions and functional establishments including the law and order apparatus but most of them either can’t keep the politicians in check or have been efficiently co-opted by the political class.

And there are really very few institutions that still matter as the forces ‘still able’ to take on the political class and have the lethal edge by their Constitutional guarantee and the positive public perception about them and so are in the hit-list of the politicians.

Here, when we talk of the institutions, we need to keep in mind that it is about the people running those institutions and how they have undermined the sanctity and authority of the institutions provided by the Constitution and so of the Constitution itself.

The situation in the country, at the moment, is more or less ‘politicians Vs the rest of all’ where on one side are the institutions controlled, manipulated and co-opted by the politicians and on the opposing side are the few institutions where not all but still many people refuse to be co-opted by the political class.

The different functional wings of the Indian Democracy have no visible lines of demarcation. On one side, there is corruption and their promoters – the corrupt politicians and the bureaucrats.

On the other side are the institutions that are seen as ‘still’ viable option to get some Constitutional remedy, to the problems that owe their genesis in the systemic failure of the System called Indian Administration.

While the all-pervasive corruption has eaten into the credibility of almost every functional wing of Indian Democracy, its scale of imminence to cause a chronic and systemic problem varies.

As the majority of the politicians of the day have become synonymous with corruption, elitism and authoritarianism, the Indian Parliament has seen the maximum credibility erosion, and by the political developments in the country, the rot, at the moment, looks irreversible.

The rot in Indian Judiciary is also deep, but the activism and alertness of higher courts and Supreme Court has become a big relief point for the people oppressed from the political tyranny and from the chronic corruption in the lower courts.

On a more positive note, Constitutional bodies like the Election Commission, the Comptroller and the Auditor General or the Central Information Commission have performed exceedingly well in an atmosphere of political gloom and sociopolitical anarchy and so are being targeted increasingly by the politicians.

If the Indian Democracy is still surviving somehow it is because of the institutions like the higher courts or the EC or the CAG or the CIC.

And politicians look all set, hands-in-glove, to challenge the good work being done by the good people in these institutions.

Subverting the Democracy by negating the important decisions taken by the Supreme Court or the Constitutional bodies has been an old practice but in recent times, it has grown on an unprecedented scale.

In the last few months, the nation has seen the ugly display of corrupt politics when the politicians across the party-lines came together to make Constitutional amendments and legal changes to nullify the Supreme Court orders on reforms in ‘Representation of the People Act’ regulating the conduct of elections, to invalidate CIC’s ruling on keeping political parties under the Right to Information Act (RTI) or the demands to scuttle the EC’s efforts to regulate the electoral ecology of the country for a free and transparent way.

And the political brazenness says it’s just the beginning.

©/IPR: Santosh Chaubey – https://santoshchaubey.wordpress.com/

*“Why India is in imminent danger of disintegration?’ is a regular column on my blogging platforms to take a periodic look (say a weekly or a fortnightly or a monthly round-up of events depending on the factors in play) on political developments that are dangerous to the democratic health of the country and contribute to the process of social disintegration of the nation..”


It had to happen; it was not even a matter of time before we were to witness yet another shame in the name of democracy!

It was a writing on the wall that we all had read. Its precursor was made evident to us from time to time with the developments like these:

Prime Minister’s Office refuses to answer RTI query on Robert Vadra citing confidentiality

Gujarat government has not given information on Narendra Modi’s travel: RTI activist

Sonia Gandhi cites privacy, refuses to disclose info on I-T returns

No details of Sonia Gandhi’s foreign tour under RTI

Scratch a little and one would come across plenty of such reports involving politicians across the party-lines!

And so it was not even the matter of time when they decided to act. They had to act and they acted swiftly to blunt the sharpness of the democratic weapon that had grown potentially dangerous for them after a recent development.

This June (and it is still this June only), the Central Information Commission (CIC) of India ruled that the political parties were under purview of the ‘Right To Information Act’ (RTI) by rightly exploiting the elements that define a ‘public authority’ in India. The detailed report was a result of a prolonged hearing after the RTI activists approached the CIC as the political parties denied information under the RTI Act on funding related matters.

It is rare to see the Indian politicians standing united in public’s eye on an issue of social concern. Though they are similar under the skin, the vote-bank compulsions push them to act enemies to each other whether the political opposition to an issue is relevant or totally baseless.

But there come certain developments when politicians are forced to shed this ‘we are different attitudes’; developments, when we see the ugly face of Indian politics.

We witness the rare political unity on display whenever there is an event that either leads to the personal benefits of the parliamentarians like increasing salaries and perks frequently or events that might threaten their absolute run of corruption like the Lokpal Bill or the CIC decision to put the political parties under the ambit of the RTI Act.

And so, this June only, within few days of the CIC ruling, reports say the government is preparing to bring an amendment to the RTI Act or an ordinance to keep the political parties out of the RTI Act. The changes would be effective retrospective and would overrun the June 3 CIC order.

According to the reports, the Department for Personnel and Training has sent a draft of the proposed ordinance to the Law Ministry. Sources say the government is going to change the definition of the ‘public authority’ in a way so as to bring the political parties out of the RTI Act applicability.

Activists are saying they would fight it out in the court while the political parties are all praise for the government on this move.

After all, how can the law of the land that applies to the commoners, can apply to the superhuman Indian politicians?

Now, expect the ordinance or the amendment soon!

But where was this swiftness when thousands were stranded and thousands had died in the disastrous Uttarakhand flash floods? The scale of the disaster and the callous attitude of the politicians in relief and rescue efforts tell us a sorry state of affairs, a blot on the humanity and a pathogen for the democratic health of the country.

But can we question the politicians?

If they are acting so undemocratic, it is us only who are allowing them to act so. Their every move has become so predictable yet we continue making silly choices by electing them in the office, the powers of which they manipulate to exploit us.

©/IPR: Santosh Chaubey – https://santoshchaubey.wordpress.com/


It’s a good day with a good moment for the Indian democracy. Politicians are fuming but the common man has a reason to look up. Expect some good outcome of it even though there are clear chances of efforts to sabotage it in the days to come.

Today, the Central Information Commission of India ruled that the political parties come under the ambit of the ‘Right To Information’ Act and they need to furnish information under the provisions of the Act.
Acting on the complaint of the RTI activists Subhash Chandra Aggarwal and Anil Bairwal, the CIC bench headed by the Central Information Commissioner Satyanand Mishra ruled out that political parties are public authorities and cannot shirk away from their responsibility to ensure transparency in the public life.

In fact, the whole decision by the CIC is worth studying. It gives detailed information about how the complainants supported their case by providing additional supporting information that led to this decision today.

They provided details like the list of political parties getting land from the government for their office buildings, rented accommodation to the political parties on government premises, details of the tax- exemption claims by the political parties, state expenditure on political parties by the way of allotting free air time on All India Radio and Doordarshan (the official state media), the valuation of the properties allotted to the political parties by the government and similar other instances of indirect financing of political parties by the state.

The premium real estate allotments to the political parties by the governments (of the political parties) have been made on nominal rates and much below the market rates. Isn’t it extortion? Why the political parties need offices in posh localities of cities?

The complainants successfully protested the contention by the political parties that the political outfits were not public authorities and so didn’t come under the purview of the RTI Act by providing information about the nature of the functioning of the political parties and so the inherent public accountability of the public duty.

The basic question before the CIC in this case, as the report says, was: The question before the Commission is whether INC/AICC, BJP, CPI(M), CPI, NCP and BSP can be held to be Public Authorities under section 2(h) of the RTI Act. 

And the Commission after deliberations, sittings and hearings came to the conclusion asserting: In view of the above discussion, we hold that INC, BJP, CPI(M), CPIO, NCP and BSP have been substantially financed by the Central Government under section 2(h)(ii) of the RTI Act. The criticality of the role being played by these Political Parties in our democratic set up and the nature of duties performed by them also point towards their public character, bringing them in the ambit of section 2(h).    The constitutional and legal provisions discussed herein above also point towards their character as public authorities.  The order of the Single Bench of this Commission in Complaint No. CIC/MISC/2009/0001 and CIC/MISC/2009/0002 is hereby set aside and it is held that AICC/INC, BJP, CPI(M), CPI, NCP and BSP are public authorities under section 2(h) of the RTI Act. 


It is this link between State power and Political Parties that has assumed critical significance in the context of the Right of Information – an Act which has brought  into  focus  the  imperatives  of  transparency  in  the  functioning  of  State institutions.  It would be facetious to argue that transparency is good for all State organs, but not so good for the Political Parties which control the most important of those organs. 

The RTI Act emphasizes that “democracy requires an informed citizenry” and that transparency of information is vital to flawless functioning of constitutional democracy.  It is nobody’s case that while all organs of the State must exhibit maximum transparency, no such obligation attaches to Political Parties. Given that Political Parties influence the exercise of political power, transparency in their  organization,  functions  and,  more  particularly,  their  means  of  funding  is  a democratic imperative, and, therefore, is in public interest”.

After various RTI applications filed to the central agencies, it was discovered that Political Parties enjoy a number of “facilities” provided to them by the government.  This is a clear instance of being “financed indirectly by funds provided  by  the  appropriate  government”  which  puts  Political  Parties squarely under the definition of ‘public authority’ as provided for in section 2(h)(d)(ii) of the RTI Act.

In addition to the 100% exemption on income under section  13A of the Income  Tax  Act,  all  the  major  Political  Parties  have  been  provided “facilities” for residential and official use by Directorate of Estates (DOE), Government  of  India,  in  New  Delhi.   They have been given offices and residential accommodations at prime locations in New Delhi (Lutyen’s Delhi) such as Akbar Road, Raisina Road, Chanakyapuri.  The rentals charged are a fraction of the market rent.  These facilities are not just provided to them at nominal rates but their maintenance, upgradation, modernization, renovation, etc. are also done at State expense. 

Equally, that  the  institution  or organization  is  not  controlled,  and  is  autonomous  is  irrelevant;  indeed,  the concept  of nongovernment organization means that it  is independent of any manner of government control in its establishment, or management. That the 47organization does not perform – or pre-dominantly performs – “public” duties, too, may not be material, as long as the object for funding is achieving a felt need of a section of the public, or to secure larger societal goals.

“To maintain the purity of elections and in particular to bring transparency in the process of election, the Commission can ask the candidates about the expenditure incurred by the Political Parties and this transparency in the process of election would include transparency of a candidate who seeks election or re-election.  In a democracy, the electoral process has a strategic role.  The little man of this country would have basis elementary right to know full particulars of a candidate who is to represent him in Parliament where laws to bind his liberty and property may be enacted.”

Yes, indeed, the little man of this country, who elects and make governments, is the most neglected of all the stakeholders who form this largest democracy on the globe, a democracy that is saddening by its pseudo-democratic functioning.

Political parties are finding it hard to accept the decision. Politicians are reacting. They would explore all the possibilities to challenge it including going to the courts. Let’s see what comes next.

There may be technicalities of the decision on which political party would come under the purview of the Act but this is a moment to think positively because this is a landmark ruling. Its sustainability lies in the future but at the moment, it has rightly slapped in the face of the hypocrisy of the political parties across the party-line (the respondents included six major political parties). This only reason is good enough to rejoice and look ahead to take the fight further for a democratic India away from the clutches of the elements killing the spirit of the country being a people’s Republic.

The whole decision makes for an interesting reading and can be accessed here:


©/IPR: Santosh Chaubey – https://santoshchaubey.wordpress.com/