An encouraging development in Bangladesh’s right to information (RTI) landscape amid a prolonged crisis has been the increased attention from citizens and civil society leaders. The discussions surrounding the law were amplified following the July 2024 uprising.
One notable demand that has emerged is the explicit inclusion of political parties under the definition of “public authorities” within the RTI Act. This inclusion is a point of contention, particularly in neighboring India, as it would subject political parties to record-keeping and disclosure obligations similar to other public entities. Many parties are hesitant about this extension, fearing scrutiny of their internal records, finances, and decision-making processes under the law.
Examining the definition of “authority” within Bangladesh’s RTI Act of 2009 sheds light on why political parties contest their categorization. To be considered an “authority,” an entity must meet specific criteria, such as being a government-funded organization, a statutory body, or an organization performing public functions under a government contract. Political parties argue that they do not fit into any of these categories and, therefore, should not be obligated to respond to RTI requests from citizens.
On the other hand, citizens argue that given political parties’ significant role in governance, they should be transparent about their activities. The RTI Act aims to enhance accountability and openness among public officials, and since politicians, through their parties, play a vital role in governance, they should be held accountable to the public.
While these issues have not been tested in Bangladesh, similar debates have taken place in India. The Central Information Commission (CIC) in India faced complaints from citizens as political parties resisted RTI requests. In 2013, the CIC determined that political parties are indeed “public authorities” due to their substantial government financing and their performance of public functions.
Despite the CIC’s ruling, political parties in India disregarded the decision, leading to legal ambiguity. Subsequently, an NGO filed a petition with the Indian Supreme Court in 2015, which was scheduled for a hearing in April 2025.
Drawing from India’s experience, incorporating political parties into Bangladesh’s RTI framework is expected to be challenging. Citizens may explore various avenues, including engaging with the government to amend the RTI Act to include political parties as “public authorities.” Direct dialogues with political parties on transparency and accountability could also be pursued, along with seeking information already available from public bodies regarding party finances and sources of funding.
There is optimism for progress by fostering dialogue with political parties and advocating for greater citizen engagement in strengthening democracy. Encouraging the government to appoint qualified Information Commissioners, make necessary legal amendments, and enforce the law effectively can further enhance transparency and accountability in Bangladesh’s RTI system.