The CIC Full Bench held on 3 June 2013 that six national political parties — INC, BJP, CPI(M), CPI, NCP, and BSP — are “public authorities” under §2(h) of the RTI Act, and that second appeals under §19(3) lie before the CIC for RTI applications filed with these parties.
Political parties have defied compliance, but the ruling remains good law and can be cited in transparency litigation.
Multiple activists and organisations, including Subhash Chandra Agarwal and the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), filed RTI applications with several national political parties seeking details of their income, expenditure, donations above ₹20,000, and party election-related accounts. The parties refused, denying that they were “public authorities.”
The CIC constituted a Full Bench of three Information Commissioners to resolve the question.
The Full Bench held: (1) “substantial financing” under §2(h)(d)(ii) is not limited to direct budgetary grants — it includes indirect state financing such as free broadcast time on Doordarshan/AIR, concessional government land, income-tax exemptions on political donations (§13A of the Income Tax Act), and free electoral rolls; (2) all six named national parties are “substantially financed, indirectly, by the appropriate Government”; (3) they are public authorities under §2(h) and must designate CPIOs and respond to RTI applications; (4) non-compliance can be pursued through a complaint under §18 or second appeal under §19.
“We hold that the INC, BJP, CPI(M), CPI, NCP and BSP are public authorities within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. They are substantially financed, directly or indirectly, by funds provided by the appropriate Government within the meaning of Section 2(h)(d)(ii) of the RTI Act. They are accordingly obliged to designate a Central Public Information Officer, a First Appellate Authority and to provide information to citizens in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.”
— CIC Full Bench, 3 June 2013, complaint and second-appeal matters relating to INC, BJP, CPI(M), CPI, NCP, and BSP
No. All six parties have defied the CIC. The Election Commission expressed inability to enforce compliance. The matter has been periodically agitated before High Courts. As of 2026, no major national party has designated a CPIO. Citizens can still file complaints under §18 and pursue the CIC route — compliance is pending, not foreclosed.
The Full Bench ruling covered only the six named national parties. Regional parties receiving substantial indirect government financing would arguably fall within the same §2(h)(d)(ii) principle, but no comprehensive order has been passed. SICs have jurisdiction over state parties.
Yes — election expenditure beyond prescribed limits, and sources of donations above ₹20,000, are precisely the type of information this ruling covers. File under RTI and also file an election-related complaint with the Election Commission.
A §19 second appeal is the normal route when a CPIO rejects your application. A §18 complaint is filed directly with the Information Commission when the public authority has not even designated a CPIO, or when the PIO ignores your application entirely — as most political parties do.
Verified source: CIC Full Bench order, 3 June 2013 · indiankanoon.org