2020 Supreme(SC) 249

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. NAGESWARA RAO, DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.
Indian Social Action Forum (INSAF) – Appellant(s)
Versus
Union of India – Respondent(s)
Civil Appeal No.1510 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.33928 of 2011)
Decided on : 06-03-2020

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Regulation of acceptance and utilisation of foreign contribution is for the purpose of protecting national interest – Candidates for election and political parties or office bearers of political parties are barred from accepting any foreign contribution.
(2) Where provisions of a statute are vague and ambiguous and it is possible to gather intention of legislature from object of statute, context in which provisions occur and purpose for which it is made, doctrine of “reading down” can be applied.

Headnote:

(A) Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 – Sections 5 (1) and 5 (4) – Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Rules, 2011 – Rules 3 (i), 3 (v) and 3 (vi) – Constitution of India – Article 19 – Social organisation – Right to receive foreign contribution – Any organisation of a political nature not being a political party shall not accept any foreign contribution except with prior permission of Central Government – Before declaring an organisation to be an organisation of a political nature not being a political party, Central Government shall take into account activities of organisation or ideology propagated by organisation or programme of organisation or association of organisation with activities of any political party – Appellant-organisation is not entitled to invoke Article 19 – No member of Appellant-organisation is arrayed as a party – Article 19 guarantees certain rights to all citizens – Appellant, being an organisation, cannot be a citizen for the purpose of Article 19 of Constitution – In absence of any member of association as a petitioner in Writ Petition, Appellant-organisation cannot enforce rights guaranteed under Article 19 of Constitution. (Paras 11 and 15)

(B) Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 – Sections 5 (1) and 5 (4) – Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Rules, 2011 – Rules 3 (i), 3 (v) and 3 (vi) – Constitution of India – Articles 14, 19 (1) (a), 19 (1) (c) and 21 – Social organisation – Right to receive foreign contribution – Regulation of acceptance and utilisation of foreign contribution is for the purpose of protecting national interest – Candidates for election and political parties or office bearers of political parties are barred from accepting any foreign contribution – As intention of legislature is to prohibit foreign funds in active politics, an Association with avowed political objectives (to play a role in active politics or party politics) cannot be permitted access to foreign funds – There is no ambiguity in the provision and cannot be termed as vague – To save Rule 3(v) from being declared as unconstitutional, Court can apply the doctrine of “reading down” – Any organisation which habitually engages itself in or employs common methods of political action like 'bandh' or 'hartal', 'rasta roko', 'rail roko' or 'jail bharo' in support of public causes can also be declared as an organisation of political nature, according to guideline prescribed in Rule 3 (vi) – Support to public causes by resorting to legitimate means of dissent like bandh, hartal etc. cannot deprive an organisation of its legitimate right of receiving foreign contribution – Bandh, hartal, rasta roko etc., are treated as common methods of political action – Any organisation which supports cause of a group of citizens agitating for their rights without a political goal or objective cannot be penalized by being declared as an organisation of a political nature – However, organisations used for channeling foreign funds by political parties cannot escape rigour of the Act provided there is concrete material – In that event, Central Government shall follow procedure prescribed in the Act and Rules strictly before depriving such organisation right to receive foreign contributions. (Paras 18, 20 and 22)

(C) Interpretation of Statute – Principles of Interpretation – Provisions of statute have to be interpreted to give the words a plain and natural meaning – But, if there is scope for two interpretations, Courts have preferred purposive construction which is now predominant doctrine of interpretation – In case of ambiguity in language used in provision of a statute, Courts can take aid from historical background, Parliamentary debates, aims and objects of Act including long title and endeavour of Court should be to interpret provisions of a statute to promote purpose of the Act – Where provisions of a statute are vague and ambiguous and it is possible to gather intention of legislature from object of statute, context in which provisions occur and purpose for which it is made, doctrine of “reading down” can be applied. (Paras 17 and 20)

Facts of the Case:

Appellant filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Delhi for a declaration that Sections 5 (1) and 5 (4) of Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 and Rules 3 (i), 3 (v) and 3 (vi) of Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Rules, 2011, are violative of Articles 14, 19 (1) (a), 19 (1) (c) and 21 of Constitution of India. The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition, aggrieved by which this appeal has been filed.

Findings of the Court:

Support to public causes by resorting to legitimate means of dissent like bandh, hartal etc. cannot deprive an organisation of its legitimate right of receiving foreign contribution. It is clear from the provision itself that bandh, hartal, rasta roko etc., are treated as common methods of political action. Any organisation which supports the cause of a group of citizens agitating for their rights without a political goal or objective cannot be penalized by being declared as an organisation of a political nature.

Result : Appeal disposed of.