11 Rules frustrates the purpose of the Rules and has the consequence of disempowering the people and the electorate in relation to accountability of the political parties. He next submits that by issuing the impugned decision/order, the respondent No.1-Information Commission has in effect abdicated its role of ensuring that all public bodies adhere to the principle of the right to information of all citizens, and has purported to condone the failure of the Election Commission to provide information in its possession in relation to political parties. Thus, the Commission has acted against the provisions, intention and the spirit of the RTI Act and the Constitution of Bangladesh. He also argues that the respondent No.1, in passing the impugned order/decision, has misinterpreted the relevant provisions of the RTI Act. In this regard he further submits that section 9(8) of the Act sets out the procedure for dealing with information, which may have been considered by a thirdparty as “ secret information” as referred to in sections 7(a), (d), (o) and (r) of the RTI Act. Hence, the provisions of section 9(8) could not have been the basis for not allowing /ordering supply of copies of the audited statements of the registered political parties, who, according to the materials on record, did not take the position that the audited statements were “secret information” under the above quoted provisions of law. He further argues that section 7 of the said Act contains the grounds /circumstances under which an “authority” is not bound to provide information, and the second proviso to section 7 requires that “the concerned authority shall take prior approval from