INDIAN SOCIAL ACTION FORUM (INSAF) versus UNION OF INDIA

Citation: [2020] 4 S.C.R. 903 · Decided: 06-03-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
903
INDIAN SOCIAL ACTION FORUM (INSAF)
v.
UNION OF INDIA
(Civil Appeal No. 1510 of 2020)
MARCH 06, 2020
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.]
Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010: Purpose of
enactment – Held: It is made to consolidate the law to regulate the
acceptance and utilisation of foreign contribution or foreign
hospitality by certain individuals or associations or companies and
to prohibit acceptance and utilisation of foreign contribution or
foreign hospitality for any activities detrimental to the national
interest and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010: ss.5(1) and
5(4) – Constitutional validity of – The power conferred by the Act
on the Central Government to declare an organisation to be an
organisation of a political nature u/s.5(1) of the Act was challenged
by the Appellant on the ground that no guidelines are provided
for the exercise of such power – s.5(4) of the Act was assailed on
the ground that the authority to which a representation made by
the aggrieved party is to be forwarded, has not been specified –
Held: s.5(1) does not suffer from the vice of vagueness inviting
the wrath of Art. 14 – s.5(4) cannot be declared as unconstitutional
only on the ground that the authority to whom representation
should be made is not specified – Constitution of India – Arts.14,
19(1)(a), 19(1)(c) and 21.
Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Rules, 2011: rr.3(i), 3(v)
and 3(vi) – Constitutional validity of – According to the Appellant,
the guidelines provided in r.3 of the Rules are impermissibly wide,
giving arbitrary discretion to the authorities which would result in
abuse of the power – It was alleged in the Writ Petition that the
Rules suffer from unreasonableness and arbitrariness – Appellant
prayed for declaring rr.3(i), 3(v) and 3(vi) as violative of the
fundamental rights enshrined in Arts.14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(c) and 21
of the Constitution – Held: According to r.3(i), an organisation
having avowed political objectives in its memorandum of
   [2020] 4 S.C.R. 903
903
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
904
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 4 S.C.R.
association or bye laws is an organisation of a political nature –
As the intention of the legislature is to prohibit foreign funds in
active politics, an Association with avowed political objectives (i.e.
to play a role in active politics or party politics) cannot be
permitted access to foreign funds – There is no ambiguity in the
provision and hence, cannot be termed as vague – r.3 (i) is not
ultra vires the Act – r.3 (v) deals with organisations of farmers,
workers, students etc. which are not directly aligned to any political
party but objectives of which include steps towards advancement
of ‘political interests’ of such groups – Prohibition from receiving
foreign aid, either directly or indirectly, by those who are involved
in active politics is to ensure that the values of a sovereign
democratic republic are protected – On the other hand, such of
those voluntary organisations which have absolutely no connection
with either party politics or active politics cannot be denied access
to foreign contributions – Therefore, such of those organisations
which are working for the social and economic welfare of the
society cannot be brought within the purview of the Act or the
Rules by enlarging the scope of the term ‘political interests’ – The
expression ‘political interests’ in r.3 (v) has to be construed to be
in connection with active politics or party politics – Any
organisation which habitually engages itself in or employs common
methods of political action like ‘bandh’ or ‘hartal’, ‘rasta roko’,
‘rail roko’ or ‘jail bharo’ in support of public causes can also be
declared as an organisation of political nature, according to the
guideline prescribed in r.3 (vi) – Support to public causes by
resorting to legitimate means of dissent like bandh, hartal etc.
cannot deprive an organisation of its legitimate right of receiving
foreign contribution – It is clear from the provision itself that
bandh, hartal, rasta roko etc., are treated as common methods of
political action – Any organisation which supports the cause of a
group of citizens agitating for their rights without a political goal
or objective cannot be penalized by being declared as an
organisation of a political nature – To save this provision from
being declared as unconstitutional, it is held that it is only those
organisations which have connecti

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.