NEW DELHI: In a ruling that expands the areas of permissible activities for non-governmental organisations , the Supreme Court on Friday ruled that the Centre cannot prevent NGOs and civil society groups from receiving foreign funds if they indulge in agitations, bandhs or hartals in support of public causes, saying such action could not be termed political in nature.

A bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and Deepak Gupta held organisations of farmers, workers, students, which are not directly aligned to any political party but work towards advancement of political interests of these sections, are entitled to receive foreign funds under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act. After examining various provisions of the law and the rules framed under it, the apex court said such voluntary organisations cannot be penalised under the act for getting foreign funds.

“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 Rule 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,” said Justice Rao, who wrote the judgment for the bench.

The court did not declare the provision unconstitutional but clarified that it would be applicable only to those organisations which are involved in active politics.

“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 penalised by being declared as an organisation of a political nature. To save this provision from being declared as unconstitutional, we hold that it is only those organisations which have connection with active politics or take part in party politics that are covered by the rule,” the court said.

The bench passed the order on a plea filed by the Indian Social Action Forum (Insaf), a voluntary organisation, challenging the validity of various provisions of the act and rules. Senior advocate Sanjay Parikh contended the act confers “unguided and uncanalised power” to the Centre to specify an organisation as an outfit of political nature — though not being a political party — to prevent it from accessing foreign funds. The words “political interests” used in the rule are vague and susceptible to misuse, he said.

The court held that “a balance has to be drawn between the object that is sought to be achieved by the legislation and rights of the voluntary organisations to have access to foreign funds. The purpose for which the statute prevents organisations of a political nature from receiving foreign funds is to ensure that the administration is not influenced by foreign funds. 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’. We are of the opinion that the expression ‘political interests’ in Rule 3 (v) has to be construed to be in connection with active politics or party politics,” the court said.

