FCRA Amendments Impose Blanket Restrictions, Disproportionate & Harsh : Petitioners Argue Before Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Thursday started hearing arguments in petitions filed challenging the Foreign Contributions Regulation (Amendment) Act 2020 and Ministry of Home Affair's notification dated May 18, 2021 extending the date for compliance of specific provisions of the Act.A Bench comprising Justice Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice CT Ravikumar heard arguments advanced by Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan on behalf of petitioners and Additional Solicitor General Sanjay Jain for Union of India in the case. At the outset, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan informed the Court that he is appearing for petitions which challenge the provisions of FCRA and not the one which supports it.Referring to the challenged provisions, he stated that after amendment now even if one gets 20,000 blankets, through foreign contribution the same cannot be given to anyone." Section 7 is so clear in its prohibition Its probably poor drafting or oversight on their part." He said.Saying that Section 17 along with 2-3 other provisions are a little harsh, he said that there is no iota of explanation in Centre's counter as to what the hurdle was that such restrictions had to be issued.Taking the Bench through relevant dates and developments, he stated that to operationalise section 17 the Government came up with a notification dated 7th October 2020. The amendment Act is notified on 29 Sept 2020, the rules came into effect in November 2020,the notifications notifying SBI Delhi Main Branch pursuant to section 17 came on 7th October 2020." On14th Oct 2020, there was Ministry's notice with procedure to maintain FCRA account and it said that accounts should be opened by 3st March 2021. So about half of them about 25000 had to immediately transfer and get FCRA account. That was extended again on 18th May till 30th June 2021. The SOP that they issued in November 2020 about how account operation will take place, we have challenged that." He said."Today in these 2 petitions there are groups of individuals before you, there are 4 organisations and one individual and in other one 5 organisations. 2 of them have opened those FCRA organisations and rest awaiting court's protection." He added.Citing the Indian Social Acton Forum case, where certain rules of FCRA were challenged, Mr Sankaranarayanan stated that the Court had in that case observed that a balance has to be drawn between object sought to be achieved by legislation and rights of the voluntary organisation to have access to have foreign funds. Further the court had held that "Therefore such of the organisations working for social and economic wellbeing of the society cannot be brought within purview of act or rules by enlarging the scope of term 'political interest'" Mr Sankaranarayanan submitted that in the recent past, the Supreme Court has said with specific reference to this act and rules, that a balance needs to be achieved and it cant be a prohibition from receiving foreigh aid, as far as organisations not involved to politics are concerned.Impugned Provisions Blanket In Nature: PetitionersMr Sankaranarayanan argued that the impugned provisions are blanket in nature. "There is a prohibition with reference to me transferring it to any person, it severely inhibits and limits everyone working in this sector, because we are looking at health, education, distribution of medicines, flood and disaster prone areas." He saidForeign Contributions Helped During Covid, Unfortunate That They're Looked At with Coloured Lens. Mr Sankaranarayanan added that during Covid, a lot of funding came from foreign sources.He added that its unfortunate that when we say foreign contributions, we keep looking at it with coloured lens at possibility that these may be terror organisations, people sponsoring money laundering, when a large number of them are Indian citizens abroad.The Bench however pointed out that the issue is if regulatory measure introduced is too extreme, mid- way or of a manageable standard." Issue is not that, issue is if this regulatory measure is too extreme, or mid way or manageable standard, that has to be decided. No one is opposed to Foreign contribution, that is recognised,it has to be done in a manner provided by the Act. You say provision is uncostitutuional as it effects your rights. General issues are not to be gone into by us", the bench said.We Are Testing A Law Made By Parliament, Assumption Is It's Aware Of All Aspects Yet Decided To Proceed: Bench The Bench added that what is challenged is not an executive order, it is a law made by the Parliament." We are testing a law made by the Parliament. When it is law made by parliament we've to proceed on assumption that parliament is aware about all aspects yet they decided to proceed, its a policy matter. Start with there. If that law is conflicting with article 14,21 etc anywhere, that test we will apply." the Bench saidAmendment Is Manifestly Arbitrary: PetitionersMr Sankaranarayanan submitted that ...

FCRA Amendments Impose Blanket Restrictions, Disproportionate & Harsh : Petitioners Argue Before Supreme Court

Srishti Ojha

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

FCRA Amendments Impose Blanket Restrictions, Disproportionate & Harsh : Petitioners Argue Before Supreme Court

Srishti Ojha

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers