The Evening Wrap: No one has absolute right to receive foreign donations, says Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Friday upheld amendments introducing restrictions in the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) while holding that no one has a fundamental or absolute right to receive foreign contributions. In a judgment that may hit non-governmental organisations (NGOs) working at the grass-root level with no direct link to foreign donors, the court reasoned that unbridled inflow of foreign funds may destabilise the sovereignty of the nation. The restrictions involve a bar on using operational FCRA accounts to receive foreign contributions; mandatory production of the Aadhaar card for registration under the FCRA. They require NGOs and recipients to open a new FCRA account at a specified branch of the State Bank of India in New Delhi as a “one-point entry” for foreign donations. The petitioners, including individuals and NGOs engaged in cultural, educational, religious activities, argued that the amendments suffered from the “vice of ambiguity, over-breadth or over-governance” and violated their fundamental rights. They said the new regime amounts to a blanket ban on the capacity of intermediary organisations in India to distribute foreign donations to smaller and less visible NGOs. But the court countered that the amendments only provide a strict regulatory framework to moderate the inflow of foreign funds into the country. “No one can be heard to claim a vested right to accept foreign donations, much less an absolute right,” a three-judge Bench led by Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, who authored the verdict, said. Free and uncontrolled inflow of foreign funds has the potential to impact the socio-economic structure and polity of the country. “Philosophically, foreign contribution (donation) is akin to gratifying intoxicant replete with medicinal properties and may work like a nectar. However, it serves as a medicine so long as it is consumed (utilised) moderately and discreetly, for serving the larger cause of humanity. Otherwise, this artifice has the capability of inflicting pain, suffering and turmoil as being caused by the toxic substance (potent tool) — across the nation,” Justice Khanwilkar wrote in a 132-page judgment. The court said charity could be found at home. NGOs could look within the country for donors. “The presence/inflow of foreign contribution in the country ought to be at the minimum level, if not completely eschewed. The influence may manifest in different ways, including in destabilising the social order within the country,” it noted. Fundamental rights have to give way in larger public interest to the need to insulate the democratic polity from the “adverse influence of foreign contributions”. “The third-world countries may welcome foreign donations, but it is open to a nation, which is committed and enduring to be self-reliant and variously capable of shouldering its own needs, to opt for a policy of complete prohibition of inflow/acceptance of foreign contribution (donation) from a foreign source,” the court said. Unregulated inflow of foreign donations would only indicate that the government was incapable of looking after its own affairs and needs of its citizens, Justice Khanwilkar observed. “The amendments do not prohibit inflow of foreign contributions, but are a regulatory measure to permit acceptance by registered persons or persons having prior permission to do so with condition that they must themselves utilise the entire contribution,” Justice Khanwilkar observed. The court held that the restrictions in the amendments were “reasonable” and “founded on intelligible criteria”. It fixed accountability on the recipients, increased the efficacy of “continual supervision” over foreign contributions, did not discriminate and served the purpose of the FCRA 2010. “Mere plea of inconvenience is not enough to attract constitutional inhibition… There is intrinsic evidence to indicate that the change effected by the amendments is to serve the legitimate government purpose and has a rational nexus to the object of the principal Act of 2010,” Justice Khanwilkar observed. However, the court read down one of the provisions — Section 12 (A) — of the 2020 Amendment Act, which mandated the production of Aadhaar card for registration. The Bench allowed the office-bearers of NGOs to use their Indian passports as an identification document. COVID-19 precaution dose for adults at private centres from April 10: Health Ministry The Union Health Ministry on Friday announced that precaution doses of COVID-19 vaccines would be made available to the 18+ population at private vaccination centres from April 10. However, all in the age group must have completed nine months from the date of administration of the second dose. As per the Health Ministry data, so far about 96% of all 15+ population in the country have received at least one dose, while about 83% of the population has received both the doses. Also, more than 2.4 crore precaution doses had been administered to healthcare and frontline workers and 60+ age group. The Ministry stated that 45% of the 12-14 age group had received the first dose. “The ongoing free vaccination programme through Government Vaccination Centres for first and second dose to the eligible population as well as precaution dose to Healthcare Workers, Frontline Workers and 60+ population would continue and would be accelerated,” it said in a release. In June last year, the Central government capped the prices for vaccines to be sold at private hospitals. With a ceiling of ₹150 that hospitals can charge a dose as ‘service charge’ and a GST of 5%, the maximum price chargeable for Covishield is ₹780, Covaxin, ₹1,410 and Sputnik V ₹1,145, the Ministry had said in an order. Court stays order withdrawing LOC against Aakar Patel A day after a Delhi court directed the CBI to withdraw a Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against former Amnesty International India Chief Aakar Patel and tender a written apology in order to “heal his wounds”, the investigating agency was granted interim relief after it moved a revision petition against the order on Friday. The order was passed by Special CBI judge Santosh Snehi Mann who directed Patel to not leave the country without the court’s permission. The next date of the hearing has been posted to April 14 and a response has been sought from Patel by the court. Staying the direction passed on Thursday by Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Pawan Kumar, the Special CBI judge orally noted: “There has to be a reasonable time to a party, who feels that the order isn’t favourable to approach the authority. The remedy is there”. The court further observed that it was necessary that due opportunity be given to the CBI to file a formal response in the matter. “In the meantime, it is necessary that the cause is not frustrated,” the order observed. During the course of the proceedings, Advocate Nikhil Goel argued that just because one had not been arrested, it could not be said that no LOC could be issued against them as it was “against the basic purpose of issuing an LOC”. “We are dealing with a situation where there is a gap between the end of investigation and beginning of proceedings before the court,” he submitted. CBI’s counsel further argued that the agency’s investigation was not biased and that they (CBI) had been fair in its probe. “Court has not even applied mind, proceedings before court have not begun, that stage has not come,” he stated. Patel tried to leave the country twice without giving the agency any opportunity to approach the court, he noted. However, advocate Tanvir Ahmed Mir, appearing for Patel, argued that the investigating officer was well aware that Patel had to leave for the U.S. by midnight and the court’s order clearly stated that the CBI should inform the immigration authorities about the same. In a separate case, Patel filed a contempt plea before Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Dharmender Singh over non-compliance of the order directing the CBI to withdraw the LOC against him. The court has issued notice to the CBI in the matter and it will be heard on April 13. On April 6, Patel was stopped by the immigration authorities at the Bangalore International Airport while boarding a U.S.-bound flight, citing the LOC issued by the CBI against Amnesty International India in an FCRA case. The court earlier noted that there cannot be any unfettered control or restriction on the right to travel and that the CBI Director should issue Patel a written apology. Hindi should be alternative to English, says Amit Shah; Congress accuses BJP of ‘cultural terrorism’ Union Home Minister Amit Shah on Thursday said when citizens of States who speak other languages communicate with each other, it should be in the language of India, stressing that Hindi should be accepted as an alternative to English and not as an alternative to local languages. Shah, who is the chairman of the Parliamentary Official Language Committee, informed members that 70% of the agenda of the Union Cabinet was now prepared in Hindi. A statement from the Ministry of Home Affairs, quoting Shah, said Prime Minister Narendra Modi had decided that the medium of running the government would be the Official Language and this would definitely increase the importance of Hindi. He said now the time had come to make the Official Language an important part of the unity of the country and added that when citizens of States who speak other language communicate with each other, it should be in the language of India. Shah said Hindi should be accepted as an alternative to English and not to local languages. He noted that unless we made Hindi flexible by accepting words from other local languages, it would not be propagated. Shah said that 22,000 Hindi teachers had been recruited in the eight States of the North East. Also, nine tribal communities of the North East had converted their dialects’ scripts to Devanagari and all the eight States of the North East had agreed to make Hindi compulsory in schools up to Class X. Shah presided over the 37th meeting of the Parliamentary Official Language Committee. Vice-Chairman of the Committee, Bhritahari Mahtab was also present. Meanwhile, reacting to Shah’s remarks, former Karnataka chief minister and senior Congress leader Siddaramaiah accused the ruling BJP of trying to unleash its agenda of “cultural terrorism” against non-Hindi speaking states, PTI reported. Siddaramaiah also accused Shah of betraying his home state Gujarat and mother-tongue Gujarati for Hindi, for his political agenda. “As a Kannadiga, I take strong offence to @HMOIndia @AmitShah’s comment on Official language & medium of communication. Hindi is not our National Language & we will never let it to be,” Siddaramaiah tweeted with the tagline “#IndiaAgainstHindiImposition” Stating that linguistic diversity is the essence of our country and we will respect each other’s sentiments, the former chief minister said pluralism is what has held our nation together and any attempt by the BJP to undo this will be met with strong opposition and retaliation. In brief An anti-terrorism court in Pakistan on Friday sentenced Mumbai terror attack mastermind and banned Jamat-ud-Dawa (JuD) chief Hafiz Saeed to 32 years in jail in two more terror financing cases. Earlier in five such cases, the 70-year-old radical cleric had already been convicted for 36 years imprisonment. The total sentence of 68 years imprisonment will run concurrently. Evening Wrap will return tomorrow [logo] The Evening Wrap 08 APRIL 2022 [The Hindu logo] Welcome to the Evening Wrap newsletter, your guide to the day’s biggest stories with concise analysis from The Hindu. [[Arrow]Open in browser]( [[Mail icon]More newsletters]( No one has fundamental or absolute right to receive foreign donations: Supreme Court  The Supreme Court on Friday [upheld amendments introducing restrictions in the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA)]( while holding that no one has a fundamental or absolute right to receive foreign contributions. In a judgment that may hit non-governmental organisations (NGOs) working at the grass-root level with no direct link to foreign donors, the court reasoned that unbridled inflow of foreign funds may destabilise the sovereignty of the nation. The restrictions involve a bar on using operational FCRA accounts to receive foreign contributions; mandatory production of the Aadhaar card for registration under the FCRA. They require NGOs and recipients to open a new FCRA account at a specified branch of the State Bank of India in New Delhi as a “one-point entry” for foreign donations. The petitioners, including individuals and NGOs engaged in cultural, educational, religious activities, argued that the amendments suffered from the “vice of ambiguity, over-breadth or over-governance” and violated their fundamental rights. They said the new regime amounts to a blanket ban on the capacity of intermediary organisations in India to distribute foreign donations to smaller and less visible NGOs. But the court countered that the amendments only provide a strict regulatory framework to moderate the inflow of foreign funds into the country. “No one can be heard to claim a vested right to accept foreign donations, much less an absolute right,” a three-judge Bench led by Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, who authored the verdict, said. Free and uncontrolled inflow of foreign funds has the potential to impact the socio-economic structure and polity of the country. “Philosophically, foreign contribution (donation) is akin to gratifying intoxicant replete with medicinal properties and may work like a nectar. However, it serves as a medicine so long as it is consumed (utilised) moderately and discreetly, for serving the larger cause of humanity. Otherwise, this artifice has the capability of inflicting pain, suffering and turmoil as being caused by the toxic substance (potent tool) — across the nation,” Justice Khanwilkar wrote in a 132-page judgment. The court said charity could be found at home. NGOs could look within the country for donors. “The presence/inflow of foreign contribution in the country ought to be at the minimum level, if not completely eschewed. The influence may manifest in different ways, including in destabilising the social order within the country,” it noted. Fundamental rights have to give way in larger public interest to the need to insulate the democratic polity from the “adverse influence of foreign contributions”. “The third-world countries may welcome foreign donations, but it is open to a nation, which is committed and enduring to be self-reliant and variously capable of shouldering its own needs, to opt for a policy of complete prohibition of inflow/acceptance of foreign contribution (donation) from a foreign source,” the court said. Unregulated inflow of foreign donations would only indicate that the government was incapable of looking after its own affairs and needs of its citizens, Justice Khanwilkar observed.  “The amendments do not prohibit inflow of foreign contributions, but are a regulatory measure to permit acceptance by registered persons or persons having prior permission to do so with condition that they must themselves utilise the entire contribution,” Justice Khanwilkar observed. The court held that the restrictions in the amendments were “reasonable” and “founded on intelligible criteria”. It fixed accountability on the recipients, increased the efficacy of “continual supervision” over foreign contributions, did not discriminate and served the purpose of the FCRA 2010. “Mere plea of inconvenience is not enough to attract constitutional inhibition… There is intrinsic evidence to indicate that the change effected by the amendments is to serve the legitimate government purpose and has a rational nexus to the object of the principal Act of 2010,” Justice Khanwilkar observed. However, the court read down one of the provisions — Section 12 (A) — of the 2020 Amendment Act, which mandated the production of Aadhaar card for registration. The Bench allowed the office-bearers of NGOs to use their Indian passports as an identification document. COVID-19 precaution dose for adults at private centres from April 10: Health Ministry    The [Union Health Ministry on Friday announced]( that precaution doses of COVID-19 vaccines would be made available to the 18+ population at private vaccination centres from April 10. However, all in the age group must have completed nine months from the date of administration of the second dose. As per the Health Ministry data, so far about 96% of all 15+ population in the country have received at least one dose, while about 83% of the population has received both the doses. [A medic administers a dose of a COVID-19 vaccine to a beneficiary at Nair Hospital in Mumbai on April 6, 2022. ] Also, more than 2.4 crore precaution doses had been administered to healthcare and frontline workers and 60+ age group. The Ministry stated that 45% of the 12-14 age group had received the first dose. “The ongoing free vaccination programme through Government Vaccination Centres for first and second dose to the eligible population as well as precaution dose to Healthcare Workers, Frontline Workers and 60+ population would continue and would be accelerated,” it said in a release. In June last year, the Central government capped the prices for vaccines to be sold at private hospitals. With a ceiling of ₹150 that hospitals can charge a dose as ‘service charge’ and a GST of 5%, the maximum price chargeable for Covishield is ₹780, Covaxin, ₹1,410 and Sputnik V ₹1,145, the Ministry had said in an order. Court stays order withdrawing LOC against Aakar Patel A day after a Delhi court directed the CBI to withdraw a Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against former Amnesty International India Chief Aakar Patel and tender a written apology in order to “heal his wounds”, the [investigating agency was granted interim relief]( it moved a revision petition against the order on Friday. The order was passed by Special CBI judge Santosh Snehi Mann who directed Patel to not leave the country without the court’s permission. The next date of the hearing has been posted to April 14 and a response has been sought from Patel by the court. Staying the direction passed on Thursday by Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Pawan Kumar, the Special CBI judge orally noted: “There has to be a reasonable time to a party, who feels that the order isn’t favourable to approach the authority. The remedy is there”. The court further observed that it was necessary that due opportunity be given to the CBI to file a formal response in the matter. “In the meantime, it is necessary that the cause is not frustrated,” the order observed. During the course of the proceedings, Advocate Nikhil Goel argued that just because one had not been arrested, it could not be said that no LOC could be issued against them as it was “against the basic purpose of issuing an LOC”. “We are dealing with a situation where there is a gap between the end of investigation and beginning of proceedings before the court,” he submitted. CBI’s counsel further argued that the agency’s investigation was not biased and that they (CBI) had been fair in its probe. “Court has not even applied mind, proceedings before court have not begun, that stage has not come,” he stated. Patel tried to leave the country twice without giving the agency any opportunity to approach the court, he noted. However, advocate Tanvir Ahmed Mir, appearing for Patel, argued that the investigating officer was well aware that Patel had to leave for the U.S. by midnight and the court’s order clearly stated that the CBI should inform the immigration authorities about the same. In a separate case, Patel filed a contempt plea before Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Dharmender Singh over non-compliance of the order directing the CBI to withdraw the LOC against him. The court has issued notice to the CBI in the matter and it will be heard on April 13. On April 6, Patel was stopped by the immigration authorities at the Bangalore International Airport while boarding a U.S.-bound flight, citing the LOC issued by the CBI against Amnesty International India in an FCRA case. The court earlier noted that there cannot be any unfettered control or restriction on the right to travel and that the CBI Director should issue Patel a written apology. Hindi should be alternative to English, says Amit Shah; Congress accuses BJP of ‘cultural terrorism’ Union Home Minister Amit Shah on Thursday said when citizens of States who speak other languages communicate with each other, it should be in the language of India, [stressing that Hindi should be accepted as an alternative to English]( and not as an alternative to local languages. Shah, who is the chairman of the Parliamentary Official Language Committee, informed members that 70% of the agenda of the Union Cabinet was now prepared in Hindi. A statement from the Ministry of Home Affairs, quoting Shah, said Prime Minister Narendra Modi had decided that the medium of running the government would be the Official Language and this would definitely increase the importance of Hindi. He said now the time had come to make the Official Language an important part of the unity of the country and added that when citizens of States who speak other language communicate with each other, it should be in the language of India. [Union Home Minister Amit Shah at the 37th meeting of the Parliamentary Committee on Official Language in New Delhi on April 7, 2022. ] Shah said Hindi should be accepted as an alternative to English and not to local languages. He noted that unless we made Hindi flexible by accepting words from other local languages, it would not be propagated. Shah said that 22,000 Hindi teachers had been recruited in the eight States of the North East. Also, nine tribal communities of the North East had converted their dialects’ scripts to Devanagari and all the eight States of the North East had agreed to make Hindi compulsory in schools up to Class X. Shah presided over the 37th meeting of the Parliamentary Official Language Committee. Vice-Chairman of the Committee, Bhritahari Mahtab was also present. Meanwhile, reacting to Shah’s remarks, former Karnataka chief minister and senior Congress leader Siddaramaiah accused the ruling BJP of trying to unleash its agenda of “cultural terrorism” against non-Hindi speaking states, PTI reported. Siddaramaiah also accused Shah of betraying his home state Gujarat and mother-tongue Gujarati for Hindi, for his political agenda. “As a Kannadiga, I take strong offence to @HMOIndia @AmitShah’s comment on Official language & medium of communication. Hindi is not our National Language & we will never let it to be,” Siddaramaiah tweeted with the tagline “#IndiaAgainstHindiImposition” Stating that linguistic diversity is the essence of our country and we will respect each other’s sentiments, the former chief minister said pluralism is what has held our nation together and any attempt by the BJP to undo this will be met with strong opposition and retaliation. In brief An anti-terrorism court in Pakistan on Friday [sentenced Mumbai terror attack mastermind and banned Jamat-ud-Dawa (JuD) chief Hafiz Saeed to 32 years in jail]( in two more terror financing cases. Earlier in five such cases, the 70-year-old radical cleric had already been convicted for 36 years imprisonment. The total sentence of 68 years imprisonment will run concurrently. Evening Wrap will return tomorrow  Today‘s Top Picks [[Russian missile strike kills 50 at Ukraine rail station] Russian missile strike kills 50 at Ukraine rail station]( [[Sri Lanka opposition threatens no-confidence motion, industry warns of 'precipice'] Sri Lanka opposition threatens no-confidence motion, industry warns of 'precipice']( [[Dasvi movie review: A self-conscious spoof seeking grace marks] Dasvi movie review: A self-conscious spoof seeking grace marks]( [[Watch| Meet India’s ‘Van Family’] Watch| Meet India’s ‘Van Family’]( Copyright @ 2021, THG PUBLISHING PVT LTD. If you are facing any trouble in viewing this newsletter, please [try here]( If you do not wish to receive such emails [go here](