26 97/2013 ew A¢i−k¡−N L¢jn−el fËcš ¢e−cÑne¡ Ae¤k¡u£ hÉhØq¡ NËqZf§hÑL A¢i−k¡NL¡l£−L AhNa Ll¡u A¢i−k¡N¢V ¢eØf¢š−k¡NÉ j−jÑ fËa£uj¡e quz ¢pÜ¡¿¹z ¢hÙ¹¡¢la fkÑ¡−m¡Qe¡−¿¹ ¢ejÀ¢m¢Mai¡−h A¢i−k¡N¢V ¢eØf¢š Ll¡ q−m¡x−k−qa¥, c¡¢uaÄfË¡ç LjÑLaÑ¡ (Bl¢VBC) A¢i−k¡NL¡l£−L abÉ L¢jn−el ¢e−cÑne¡ Ae¤k¡u£ Z_¨ plhl¡−ql ¢ho−u AhNa L−l−Re, ®p−qa¥ f§−hÑl ¢pÜ¡¿¹ hq¡m ®l−M A¢i−k¡N¢V wb:®úwË Ll¡ q−m¡z pw¢nÔÖV frNe−L Ae¤¢m¢f ®fËle Ll¡ −q¡Lz ü¡x Ax (®j¡q¡Çjc g¡l¦L) fËd¡e abÉ L¢jne¡l Ó In view of the above, it appears that the Election Commission refused to supply the audited statements of accounts of the registered political parties to the petitioners without their opinion considering those statements as “secret information”; but it appears from Annexure-7 series to the supplementary affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No.2 and the statements of paragraph No.4 to the said affidavit-in-opposition that none of the political parties specifically requested the Election Commission to consider their submitted audit statements of accounts as “confidential”. However, citizens’ right to information has been enshrined in section 4 of the RTI Act, 2009, which runs as follows“Subject to the provisions of this Act, every citizen shall have the right to information from the authority, and the authority shall, on demand from a citizen, be bound to provide him with the information.”