Last Updated:
The government had rejected FCRA renewal applications over intel reports that foreign donations were diverted by the NGOs for protests against the Vizhinjam seaport project
The court found no tangible material or financial trail proving that foreign funds were used to finance the protesters over the project. (File pic/PTI)
In a landmark ruling affirming civil liberties, the Kerala High Court quashed the central government’s refusal to renew the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) registration certificates of two prominent non-governmental organisations (NGOs)—the Kerala Social Service Forum and Save a Family Plan India.
Delivering the judgment, a single bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas ruled that the right to peaceful protest is a constitutionally protected fundamental right. The court firmly held that supporting public agitation or expressing dissent cannot be labelled an “undesirable purpose” or deemed contrary to “public interest” simply due to administrative disapproval.
Dissent Is Not an ‘Undesirable Purpose’
The union government had rejected the FCRA renewal applications, relying on a report from a central intelligence agency. The report alleged that foreign donations received by the non-profits were diverted to support local agitations against the multi-crore Vizhinjam international seaport project in 2022.
Striking down the rejection orders, the High Court emphasised several key legal principles:
- Absence of Evidence: The court found no tangible material or financial trail proving that foreign funds were used to finance the protesters.
- Protection of Peaceful Protest: Even if financial support had been extended to peaceful demonstrators, exercising the right to protest under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution cannot justify denying FCRA renewal.
- Executive Distaste vs Law: Executive or administrative disapproval of dissent cannot convert a legitimate constitutional right into an “undesirable purpose” under Section 12(4) of the FCRA.
- Mandate for Reasoned Orders: Rejecting a renewal without providing explicit reasons renders the action arbitrary, noting that an order without reasons is “born of whim and not of law”.
The court directed competent authorities to review the applications and issue fresh orders within three months in accordance with the law.
Debate over Foreign Funding Rules
The judicial rebuke arrives amid heightened national debate over foreign funding regulations. In Parliament, the Lok Sabha referred the contentious Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2026to a 31-member Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for detailed scrutiny.
The proposed legislation seeks to introduce tighter supervisory mechanisms, including empowering a “Designated Authority” to take over, manage, or dispose of assets built using foreign contributions if an NGO’s FCRA license is cancelled, surrendered, or denied renewal. While the government maintains the measures ensure national security and financial transparency, civil society organisations and opposition lawmakers contend the law risks centralising oversight and penalising non-governmental institutions.
About the Author
Pathikrit Sen Gupta is a Senior Associate Editor with News18.com and likes to cut a long story short. He writes sporadically on Politics, Sports, Global Affairs, Space, Entertainment, And Food. He tra…Read More
Thiruvananthapuram, India, India
August 13, 2026, 02:21 IST
Read More
Source link
[ad_3]