12 Information Commission for withholding information under this section”. Since the Election Commission did not seek any prior approval from the Information Commission in respect of withholding the audited statements of accounts submitted by the political parties; hence, issuance of the impugned decision/order is without any jurisdiction and in violation of the RTI Act. He further submits that the definition of the term “information” as provided in section 2(f) of the RTI Act clearly states that “information” includes “….any other documentary material regardless of its physical form or characteristics, and any copy thereof in relation to the …. official activities of any authority.” According to section 2(b) of the said Act, the Election Commission is an “authority” with responsibilities and obligations to ensure transparency. Since the political parties are required by the Registration Rules to submit their audited statements of accounts to the Election Commission, such statements of accounts, as soon as submitted to the Election Commission, fall under the scope of “information” defined in the RTI Act. Therefore, the Election Commission, being an “authority” under the said Act is under a clear obligation to provide to anyone who seeks such audited statements of accounts under the said Act. He also argues that the respondent No.1 in passing the impugned decision/order misinterpreted section 9(8) of the RTI Act in violation of the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder in holding that the audited financial accounts of a registered political party is “secret information”. Political parties, being constitutionally