- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Centre defends FCRA amendments in Supreme Court No fundamental right to receive unregulated foreign contribution The Central government has submitted to the Supreme Court, "there exists no fundamental right to receive unbridled foreign contribution without any regulation." In an affidavit filed before the apex court, the Centre emphasized there was no question of fundamental...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
Centre defends FCRA amendments in Supreme Court
No fundamental right to receive unregulated foreign contribution
The Central government has submitted to the Supreme Court, "there exists no fundamental right to receive unbridled foreign contribution without any regulation."
In an affidavit filed before the apex court, the Centre emphasized there was no question of fundamental rights violation through control of acceptance of foreign contribution by certain organizations. It added that organizations or individuals were open to operating with locally secured funds and achieving their objectives.
The affidavit was filed in response to three petitions – two challenging the validity of the amendments and one seeking stricter enforcement of the amendments.
The plea by Noel Harper of NGO Care And Share Charitable Trust challenged certain sections inserted in the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Act, 2020.
The plea by Jeevan Jyothi Charitable Trust challenged the Constitutional validity of the amended FCRA, 2010. It mandated that the primary FCRA account was to be opened exclusively in a branch of the State Bank of India, New Delhi, as notified by the Government of India.
Defending the amendments made in 2020, the Centre upheld, "The Right to life and liberty cannot include the right to receive unregulated foreign contributions."
The government submitted that the amendment was introduced due to the difficulties experienced in the monitoring of inflow and outflow of foreign contributions. The complications arose when the accounts of various NGOs were spread in different banks across the country.
The Centre contended that it allowed an endless chain of transfers and created a layered trail of money, thus making it difficult to trace the flow and utilization of foreign contributions. It was required to fix the accountability and ensure the recipient organization utilized the foreign contribution for the purpose it was received.
The government stated that the amended sections only restrict the transfer of foreign contributions to other persons/NGOs once a particular NGO/individual received the foreign contribution in India.
"The petitioner or any entity/NGO has to utilize it for the purposes for which it has been given a certificate of registration or prior permission by the government. Hence, such a ban on transfer was not discriminatory," it said.
The government also stated that the Ministry of Home Affairs and the State Bank of India have put in place a system to enable the NGOs to open the main designated FCRA account in SBI, New Delhi, Main Branch, without any need to physically visit the bank.