The ruling was pronounced on an appeal of an NGO, the Association of Democratic Reforms (ADR), which sought the disclosure of Income Tax returns and assessment orders pertaining to such organisations.
"The laws of the land do not make it mandatory for political parties to disclose sources of their funding and even less so the manner of expending those funds. In the absence of such laws, the only way a citizen can gain access to the details of funding of political parties is through IT returns filed annually with IT authorities," Information Commissioner A N Tiwari said.
The CIC said since political parties influence the exercise of political power, transparency in their organisation and functions, and more particularly, their means of funding is a democratic imperative and therefore is in public interest.
"There is unmistakable public interest in knowing these funding details which would enable the citizen to make an informed choice about the political parties to vote for," the CIC said, in its 24-page order, allowing ADR's appeal.
Referring to various Supreme Court rulings, bringing transparency in the functioning of political parties and their fundings, the CIC held that every citizen is entitled to seek information from IT department either under IT Act or the RTI Act. It, however, held that Permanent Account Number (PAN) of those political parties, whose IT returns are to be divulged, should not be disclosed as there was a possibility of the information being subjected to fraudulent use.
All the political parties except the CPI and CPM had objected to disclosure of information on their IT returns. The Congress, had termed the appellant as "busy body having malafide intent" and accused it of seeking information for "ulterior motives".
The BJP, on the other hand, claimed the IT returns were confidential information, parting with which, would amount to infringement of certain privacy rights of the political parties' members. The response of as many as 20 political parties had come on the notices issued by the apex information panel.
The law and justice ministry, however, had refused to express its opinion on the subject saying its views could come in conflict to the interest of the public authority against whom the CIC may pass an order in this regard.
