10 2009 (in short, the Act) and the Political Parties Registration Rules, 2008 are intended to ensure transparency, accountability and good governance with respect to the political parties, which are major stakeholders in the democratic process and in public affairs. He also submits that the impugned decision has the effect of curtailing the citizen’s right to information with regard to the affairs of the political parties and holds them accountable through public discourse. Such an interpretation of the RTI Act could not have been intended by the legislature. He goes to argue that incompatibility of the impugned decision with the RTI Act is manifest from the preamble of the said Act, which makes it clear that the Act has been enacted to give effect to the right to information, as an inalienable part of freedom of thought, conscience and speech, and to empower the people by ensuring transparency and accountability of all public, autonomous and statutory organizations. Therefore, any interpretation of the RTI Act restricting the people’s right to have access to information provided to the Election Commission by the political parties, both of which are public bodies, is contrary to both the Constitution and the RTI Act. He further goes to argue that the Election Commission by framing the Registration Rules has sought to ensure effective transparency and accountability of the political parties, which are to be registered with the Election Commission and are to enjoy the benefits of such registration. Therefore, withholding the audited financial accounts submitted by the political parties as a requirement under the said