SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. KHANWILKAR, DINESH MAHESHWARI, C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
Noel Harper and Others – Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and Another – Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 566, 634, 751 of 2021
Decided On : 08-04-2022
JUDGMENT :
A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.
1. These petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India primarily assail the constitutional validity of the amendments to the provisions of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 20101 [for short “the 2010 Act” or “the Principal Act” as the case may be] vide the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Act, 20202 [for short “the 2020 Act” or “the Amendment Act” as the case may be] which has come into effect on 29.9.2020, in particular, Sections 7 , 12(1A), 12A and 17(1), being manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable and impinging upon the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioners under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
2. Re: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 566 of 2021
(b) The petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 are also trustees of National Worker Welfare Trust (NWWT), which is registered under the Indian Trusts Act, 18824 [for short “the 1882 Act”] in Secunderabad, Telangana on 17.5.2016. Even this trust is registered with Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India under the 2010 Act for receipt of foreign funds ( FCRA Registration No. 010230883). It is engaged in rehabilitation of migrant workers, with International Labour Organisation (ILO) and addresses the concerns of women workers from the marginalised communities and prospective migrant workers (interstate and oversees), families of migrants, communities, leaders of communities, returnees, women organisations, trade unions, local panchayats, Mandal, district and State department connected with labour and administration and governance related to these workers. Both these trusts, it is urged, are dependent upon foreign contributions to meet their day-to-day expenses. However, with the amendments effected in year 2020 to the provisions of the 2010 Act, a new dispensation has been set forth, which in their opinion, is manifestly arbitrary. For, it entails in cancellation of certificate5 [The expression “certificate” as defined in Section 2 (1)(e) of the 2010 Act as amended, reads thus: “2. Definitions - (1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires: (a) to (e) xxx xxx xxx (e) “certificate” means certificate of registration granted under sub-section (3) of section 12.”] of the trust permitting receipt of foreign contributions for being utilised towards the activities of the concerned trust. Similarly, the operational “ FCRA account” will be barred from receiving foreign contribution. The petitioner-Trusts and similarly
Compounding a violation under the FCRA Act rectifies the applicant's status, and vague basis for rejection violates principles of natural justice.
Point of law : By the time suspension order was passed, the Central Government had neither issued any notice of hearing / Show Cause notice in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 14 nor had it initia....
The court upheld the suspension of the FCRA registration under Section 13, ruling that no prior inquiry or hearing is required, affirming the necessity of statutory compliance over natural justice.
The delayed opening of the FCRA bank account and subsequent actions of the petitioner influenced the court's decision in validating the uploaded annual return without further penalties.
Point of law: Exemptions and relaxations under different Statutes are not a matter of right. It is the prerogative power of the Government to exempt or give relaxations with or without stringent cond....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.