High Court of Delhi
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG & JAYANT NATH, JJ.
Association For Democratic Reforms & Another
Versus
Union of India & Others
W.P.(C) No. 131 of 2013
Decided on: 28-03-2014
FCRA - Violation of Prohibition on Acceptance of Foreign Contributions by Political Parties - Section 29(b) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 and Section 4(1)(e) of FCRA - The court discussed the effect of donations made by foreign companies to political parties and the interpretation of FCRA. It analyzed the definition of 'Foreign Source' and 'Corporation' and concluded that the donations accepted by the political parties from foreign companies fell foul of the ban imposed under FCRA.
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.
1. Filed in public interest, the petitioner asserts that there is a blatant violation of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as ‘FCRA’) by political parties which include the Respondent No.3 and the Respondent No.4. It is asserted that Section 29(b) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 prohibits political parties from taking donations from Government Companies as also from a foreign source. The petitioner asserts that FCRA prohibits acceptance of foreign contributions by political parties as per the mandate of Section 4(1)(e) thereof.
2. Since the writ petition drew attention to donations made to political parties for the period up to the year 2009, we record at the outset that our concern is not with the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 which has come into force on September 26, 2010. Our discussion of the legal position would be with respect to the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976.
3. By way of illustration, the petitioner relies upon the annual report of Vedanta Resources plc, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1985 and registered in England and Wales with registration No.04740415 as also the annual report of M/s Sterlite Industries India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Sterlite), a company registered in India under the Companies Act, 1956 evidencing donation made by Sterlite to political parties in India. The petitioner also refers to a company by the name of M/s Sesa Goa Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Sesa), which is incorporation in India under the Companies Act, 1956 but controlling shareholding whereof is owned by Vedanta Resources plc. The said company has also made donations to political parties. The petitioner brings home with reference to the annual report of Vedanta Resources plc that it owns 55.1% of the issued share capital of Sterlite. The petitioner would concede that Sh.Anil Aggarwal, an Indian National and a citizen of India holds more than 50% issued share capital of Vedanta Resources plc. As regards the Respondent No.3 the petitioner brings out that two Government Companies: State Trading Corporation and Metals & Minerals Trading Corporation of India have donated money to the Respondent No.3, a fact admitted to by Sh.Motilal Mehra, the Treasurer of the party in his communication dated September 29, 2008 to the Election Commission of India. Section 293(a) of the Companies Act, 1956 is alleged to have been violated by the Respondent No.3 when it accepted donations from the State Trading Corporation and Metals & Minerals Trading Corporation of India.
4. The Respondent No.3 admits that `1,00,000/- each paid by State Trading Corporation and Metals & Minerals Trading Corporation of India finds a mention in the return submitted by its Treasurer to the Election Commission of India, but seeks to explain that the donations were actually made to the National Student Union of India (NSUI) as a part of a national campaign form Centenary Celebration of Satyagaraha which was sponsored by said two Corporations, which were conceded to be Government Companies. In other words, the defence is one of it being an inadvertent mistake. A donation required to be entered in the account of NSUI has been erroneously entered in the account of the Respondent No.3.
5. We shall be discussing the effect thereof at the end of our decision, but would highlight at this stage that with respect to petitioner’s pleading concerning the two Government Companies, the parties were not at variance on any question of law or fact. The only question would be to consider whether the defence of inadvertent mistake is plausible.
6. The major concern would be the interpretation of FCRA keeping in view the admitted fact that Sterlite and Sesa are companies registered in India under the Companies Act, 1956 and more than 50% of their issued share capital is held by Vedanta Resources plc a company incorporation under the Companies Act, 1985 and regist
(1975) 3 SCC 862 Anandji Haridas & Co.(P) Ltd. v. Engg. Mazdoor Sangh
AIR 1951 SC 41 Chiranjit Lal Chowdhury v. Union of India
AIR 1953 SC 58 D.N Banerjee v. P.R Mukherjee and (1981) 2 SCC 585 Sonia Bhatia v. State of U.P.
AIR 1956 SC 246 A Thangal Kunju Musaliar v. M Venkatachalam Potti;
(1969) 1 SCC 839 A.V.S Narasimha Rao v. Stateof A.P;
AIR 1993 SC 477 Indira Sawhney v. Union of India;
(2001) 7 SCC 126 S.R Chaudhuri v. State of Punjab;
68 (1997) DLT 553 P.V Narsimha Rao v. Central Bureau Of Investigation:-
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.