Supreme Court Reserves Judgment On Plea Challenging the Validity of Certain Provisions of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Act, 2020-Full Courtroom Exchange

The Supreme Court on Tuesday took up the part-heard matter in the plea challenging the validity of certain provisions of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Act, 2020 to regulate foreign funds received by NGOs for further hearing.A bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari, and CT Ravikumar heard the contentions put forth by the Senior Advocate Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General of India, Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjay Jain, ASG, and Senior Advocate Gopal Shanakaranarayanan appearing for the petitioner challenging the provisions of the Amendment Act, at length.At the outset Mr. Tushar Mehta pointed out that wherever a statute is challenged it has to be on the basis of a. Legislative incompetence; b. Violation of Fundamental Rights, including arbitrariness envisaged in Article 14; c. The amendment is beyond the scope and object of the act.He insisted that the Court ought to be taken through the legislative policy of India before going into the challenges mounted in the petition. Pointing out that the right to receive foreign contributions cannot be a fundamental right, he narrated the legislative policy -"Foreign contribution can, if unregulated, result in devastating consequences to the sovereignty of the nation...Please have my affidavit… 'Common preliminary affidavit for Petitioner No. 1 and 2'… As a nation we have always been very very conscious of foreign contributions...What I would ultimately submit is that it is a regulation with an object and has been very clear from day one of the legislation. This I have quoted, if your Lordship sees at the foot of para 31, this was the original Act Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976, the predecessor Act. "An Act to regulate the acceptance and utilisation, contribution or foreign hospitality by certain persons or associations with a view to ensuring that parliamentary institutions, academic and other voluntary organisations" mark this "as well as individuals working in the important areas of national life may function in a manner consistent with the values of a sovereign, democratic, republic" - This is the intent, purpose, very foundation of bringing in bringing in a legislative enactment in 1976. Thereafter, came to be amended in 1985, statement of objects of the ordinance at pg 20. Kindly see a few paragraphs...Earlier if the Govt. of China was contributing to any NGO in India, then was regulated. The govt, various govt.,maybe genuine NGOs in other countries were also infusing funds in India, therefore the definition was enlarged to include such contributions also for the purpose of tracing the utilisation of foreign contribution down the line. In one line I say, they (amendment) were made to strengthen the original object. Then a bill came in 2006 in page 21".The Bench enquired if the ordinance was made into an Act later on. To which Mr. Mehta responded:"Could not get the statement of objects and reasons of the Act, therefore Milord I have placed this. But it matured into an Act...Kindly see page 21, These are the Statement of object and reasons of the bill itself, my mistake. It matured into an Amending Act. Now para 33 [Reads on]... Para 2 of Statement of objects - 'Significant developments have taken place since 1984 such as change in internal security scenario, increased influence of voluntary organisation, spread of use of communication and information technology, quantum jump in the foreign contribution being received and large scale growth in the number of registered organisations , this has necessitated large scale changes to replace the present act by new legislation and accounting of foreign contribution and acceptance of foreign hospitality of a person or association.' As and when the country got the experience of a new development the country has responded. This is not the first time this has happened. Right from 76, 85 now we are in 2006 - this is what has happened. Now see the existing Act...I am reading the existing Act ...of 2010, para 35 pg 23 . This was 2010, so the policy has remained consistent, de hors. The consistent policy of the country has been to guard against foreign contributions being abused, misused or utilized in a manner which is not in sync with the security, integrity etc."The Bench interjected to correct the Solicitor General to clarify, "The expression used is sovereignty not integrity. So much wider than security."Apologising for his loose use of the term, Mr. Tushar Mehta continued elucidating the legislative policy -"It is submitted that thereafter, the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 was enacted bringing about a new regime in order to match the pace of times. It is submitted that the objects and reasons behind the same are as under :It has been noticed that some of the foreign countries were funding individuals, associations, political parties, candidates for elections, correspondents, columnists, editors, owners, printers or publishers of newspapers. They were also...

Supreme Court Reserves Judgment On Plea Challenging the Validity of Certain Provisions of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Act, 2020-Full Courtroom Exchange

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Supreme Court Reserves Judgment On Plea Challenging the Validity of Certain Provisions of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Act, 2020-Full Courtroom Exchange

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers