Non-Governmental Organisations or NGOs, supporting public causes via recognised means of protest & dissent can't be deprived of funds from foreign contributors & sources, the Apex Court said today in a potentially key verdict. The Supreme Court said organisations that didn't have a political goal couldn't be penalised by declaring them "an organisation of political nature".
The SC said that NGOs with non-political goals that supported public causes by resorting to legitimate means of dissent - such as bandhs & strikes - couldn't have access to funds cut because, under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010, or FCRA, these are common expressions of political action.
The Court said that "It is clear from the provision itself that bandhs, hartals, rasta rokos, etc. are treated as common methods of political action. Any organisation that support the cause of a group of citizens agitating for their rights without a political goal or objective cannot be penalised by being declared an organisation of political nature".
The Top Court decision, delivered by a 2-Judge bench consisting of Justices L Nageswara Rao & Deepak Gupta, comes against a petition filed by the Indian Social Action Forum (INSAF) that challenged certain provisions of the FCRA, alleging it violated certain fundamental rights as guaranteed by the Constitution.
The SC upheld the provision but, simultaneously. also, read it down, or diluted it.
"To save this provision from being declared unconstitutional, we hold it is only those organisations that have connection with active politics, or take part in politics, that are covered," Justice L Nageswara Rao, writing the Judgement for the bench, said.
The Top Court pointed out that the legislative intent behind the law had been to prohibit political organisations from receiving foreign contributions. It added that a balance had to be drawn between that objective & the rights of voluntary organisations to have access to foreign funds.
The INSAF plea had earlier been dismissed by the High Court of Delhi.
The petitioner, Senior Lawyer Sanjay Parekh, contended that vague expressions had been given to certain activities, & "instead of defining those activities, the canvas of vagueness has been expanded thereby resulting in arbitrariness & violation of constitutional parameters".
Last month, while reserving its order in the case, the court said dissent couldn't be throttled and people should be encouraged to question the Govt as this was an important facet of democracy.
Under the provisions of the FCRA that were challenged, the centre had unchecked powers to categorise virtually any organisation as "organisation of political nature, not being a political party", & thereby deny foreign contribution.
The SC verdict have been seen by many as crucial given cases registered against NGOs like human rights group Amnesty India, over violation of alleged provisions of the FCRA.
Amnesty India offices in Bengaluru & Delhi were raided by the Central Bureau of Investigation, or CBI, in November last year. The group had said it was being targeted for speaking out against human rights abuses in the country.
In 2018, the premises of another international NGO, environmental watchdog Greenpeace, were also raided by the Enforcement Directorate, weeks before its move against Amnesty.
Read Judgement: 2020 Latest Caselaw 259 SC, INDIAN SOCIAL ACTION FORUM vs. UNION OF INDIA
Source Link
