Kerala High Court’s Landmark Decision on FCRA Renewal
In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court annulled the Central Government’s decision to deny the renewal of Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 (FCRA) registrations for two non-governmental organizations (NGOs). These NGOs were accused of financially supporting the protests against the Vizhinjam Port project. The cases involved the Kerala Social Service Forum and Save a Family Plan India, who had their renewal applications rejected based on these allegations.
Judicial Findings: No Evidence of Undesirable Purpose
Presided over by Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, the Court found no substantial evidence to support claims that the NGOs funded the protesters. The judgment emphasized that even if the organizations did support peaceful protestors financially, such actions could not be categorized as using foreign funds for an undesirable purpose or against public interest under the FCRA. The Court reinforced the notion that the right to peaceful protest is constitutionally protected.
“When the right to protest is constitutionally guaranteed, exercising such a right cannot be labeled as an ‘undesirable purpose’ or against public interest,” Justice Thomas stated. He further clarified that terms like ‘undesirable purpose’ in Section 12(4)(a)(vi) of the FCRA should not be interpreted as undesirable to the government or political will.
Case Details: NGOs’ FCRA Renewal Efforts
The Kerala Social Service Forum, a body coordinating social initiatives across 32 Catholic Diocesan Social Service Societies in Kerala, had held its FCRA registration since 1985. However, its renewal application was rejected in October 2023, with authorities citing provisions under Sections 12(4)(a)(vi) and 12(4)(f)(iii) of the FCRA. These sections allow denial of FCRA registration if foreign funding is deemed to adversely affect India’s sovereignty, integrity, or security.
In a similar vein, Save a Family Plan India, which had also been FCRA-registered since 1985, faced rejection for its renewal application. The authorities demanded clarification regarding fund transfers to other FCRA-registered NGOs, particularly the Trivandrum Social Service Society (TSSS), which allegedly redirected funds to support the protestors.
More Read
High Court’s Verdict and Implications
The Court criticized the authorities for failing to provide adequate reasons for their rejection, highlighting that Section 16(3) of the FCRA mandates specifying reasons even when denying a renewal. “In a democratic country governed by the rule of law, rejecting an application without reason is an act born of whim, not law,” the Court asserted.
The Centre maintained that revealing the reasons for denial was not possible due to national security concerns. Nonetheless, the Court noted that an Intelligence Bureau report favored the petitioners, with only the recommendation section citing adverse remarks.
Ultimately, the Court decreed that the refusal of FCRA renewal was arbitrary and illegal, directing the authorities to issue fresh orders within three months. Senior counsel Santosh Mathew, along with a team of advocates, represented the petitioners, while Deputy Solicitor General of India OM Shalina appeared for the Union of India.
More Read
Conclusion
This ruling underscores the judiciary’s role in safeguarding constitutional rights, such as the right to peaceful protest, while balancing national interests and NGO operations within India.
