caselaws.org
Supreme Court of India
Indian Social Action … vs Union Of India on 6 March, 2020Author: L. Nageswara Rao
Bench: L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No.1510 of 2020
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.33928 of 2011)
Indian Social Action Forum (INSAF)
…. Appellant(s)
Versus
Union of India
…. Respondent (s)
JUDGMENT
L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.
1. The Appellant filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of
Delhi for a declaration that Sections 5 (1) and 5 (4) of the
Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘the Act’) and Rules 3 (i), 3 (v) and 3 (vi) of
the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Rules, 2011
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’), are violative of
Articles 14, 19 (1) (a), 19 (1) (c) and 21 of the Constitution
of India. The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition,
aggrieved by which this appeal has been filed. The
1 | Page
Appellant is a registered society involved in resisting
globalization, combating communalism and defending
democracy. In the Writ Petition filed before the High Court,
the Appellant-organisation stated that it firmly believes in
a secular and peaceful social order and opposes
communalism and the targeted attacks on the lives and
rights of people including religious minorities. Several
activities of the Appellant-organisation in the interest of
the society have been referred to in the Writ Petition. The
power conferred by the Act on the Central Government to
declare an organisation to be an organisation of a political
nature under Section 5 (1) of the Act was challenged by
the Appellant on the ground that no guidelines are
provided for the exercise of such power. Section 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. According to the
Appellant, the guidelines provided in Rule 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
2 | Page
unreasonableness and arbitrariness. Hence, the Appellant
prayed for declaring Rules 3 (i), 3 (v) and 3 (vi) as violative
of the fundamental rights enshrined in Articles 14, 19 (1)
(a), 19 (1) (c) and 21 of the Constitution.
2. After considering the relevant provisions of the Act
and the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant, the
High Court of Delhi dismissed the Writ Petition as being
bereft of merit.
3. Mr. Sanjay Parikh, learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the Appellant submitted that Section 5 (1) of the Act
confers unguided and uncanalised power on the Central
Government to specify an organisation as an organisation
of a political nature not being a political party. He
submitted that Rule 3 (i), 3 (v) and 3 (vi) which contain the
guidelines and grounds, suffer from the vice of vagueness.
According to Mr. Parikh, Rules 3 (i), 3 (v) and 3 (vi) require
to be declared as unconstitutional as they are vague,
overbroad and unreasonable. He urged that the
vagueness in the said provisions leads to arbitrary exercise
of power in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. He
further submitted that an organisation, the activity of
3 | Page
which is to educate and promote civil, political, social,
economic and cultural rights cannot be prevented from
having access to funding, whether domestic or foreign.
Curtailing the right of the Appellant-organisation in having
access to foreign funds would result in the violation of the
fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 19 (1) (a)
and 19 (1) (c) of the Constitution. He relied upon the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights which have been accepted as sources of human
rights by the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.
Mr.Parikh submitted that political rights are an integral part
of human rights and any restriction in exercise of political
rights would be unconstitutional.
4. Mr.K.M.Nataraj, learned Additional Solicitor General
appearing for the Respondent defended the judgment of
the High Court by arguing that all the relevant points have
been rightly adjudicated by the High Court. He argued
that the constitutional validity of a statute can be
challenged only on two grounds which are legislative
competence and violation of any of the fundamental rights
4 | Page
guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution. Additionally,
he submitted that a subordinate legislation can be
challenged successfully only on the ground of the
subordinate legislation being ultra vires the Act. The
learned Additional Solicitor General contended that the
Appellant organisation is not entitled to invoke Article 19 of
the Constitution of India. According to him, Article 19
provides for fundamental rights which are guaranteed only
to citizens. The Appellant organisation cannot be
considered as a citizen. Moreover, no individual member
of the organisation has been made a party to the Writ
Petition or in this Appeal. In support of this submission, he
relied upon judgments of this Court reported in Tata
Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. State of
Bihar1 and Shree Sidhbali Steels Ltd. vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh2. According to the learned Additional
Solicitor General, right to receive foreign contribution is not
a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19 of the
Constitution. We were taken through the provisions of the
Act and the Rules by the learned Additional Solicitor
1 (1964) 6 SCR 885
2 (2011) 3 SCC 193
5 | Page
General who submitted that sufficient safeguards against
possible abuse of power are incorporated in the Act and
the Rules. That apart, it was contended that possibility of
abuse of power cannot be a ground to challenge
legislation. It was submitted that the object and purpose
of the Act has to be taken into consideration by this Court
while interpreting the provisions of the Act. The further
submission on behalf of the Respondent was that the
principle of ‘reading down’ has to be adopted in case this
Court is of the opinion that there is ambiguity in Rule 3 of
the Rules.
5. It is imperative to refer to the statutory regime. The
Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘the 1976 Act’) was enacted to regulate the
acceptance and utilization of foreign contribution or foreign
hospitality by certain persons or associations with a view
to ensure that parliamentary institutions, political
associations, academic and other voluntary organisations
as well as other individuals working in important areas of
national life may function in a manner consistent with the
values of a sovereign democratic republic and the matters
6 | Page
connected therewith and incidental thereto. The
background in which the 1976 Act was made has been
succinctly stated by the High Court of Delhi in
Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of
India3 as follows:
“It can be safely gathered that amidst a spate of
subversive activities sponsored by the Foreign Powers
to destabilize our nation, the Foreign Contribution
(Regulation) Act, 1976 was enacted by the Parliament
to serve as a shield in our legislative armoury, in
conjunction with other laws like the Foreign Exchange
Regulation Act, 1973, and insulate the sensitive areas of
national life like – journalism, judiciary and politics from
extraneous influences stemming from beyond our
borders.”
6. In view of several deficiencies in the 1976 Act, a fresh
law in the shape of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation)
Act, 2010 was made by repealing the 1976 Act. The
introduction of the Act is as under:
“It had been noticed that some of the foreign countries
were funding individuals, associations, political parties,
candidates for elections, correspondents, columnists,
editors, owners, printers or publishers of newspapers.
They were also extending hospitality. The effects of
such funding and hospitality were quite noticeable and
3 (2014) 209 DLT609
7 | Page
to have some control over such funding and hospitality
and to regulate the acceptance and utilisation of foreign
contribution or foreign hospitality by certain persons or
associations, with a view to ensuring that Parliamentary
institutions, political associations and academic and
other voluntary organisations as well as individuals
working in the important areas of national life may
function in a manner consistent with the values of a
sovereign democratic republic the Foreign Contribution
(Regulation) Act, 1976 (49 of 1976) was enacted.”
7. The long title of the 2010 Act indicates that 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. Section 3 of the Act prohibits
acceptance of foreign contribution by the following:
(a) candidate for election;
(b) correspondent, columnist, cartoonist, editor, owner,
printer or publisher of a registered newspaper;
(c) Judge, Government servant or employee of any
corporation or any other body controlled or owned by
the Government;
(d) member of any Legislature;
8 | Page
(e) political party or office-bearer thereof;
(f) organisation of a political nature as may be specified
under sub-section (1) of section 5 by the Central
Government;
(g) association or company engaged in the production
or broadcast of audio news or audio visual news or
current affairs programmes through any electronic
mode, or any other electronic form as defined in clause
(r) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Information
Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000) or any other mode of
mass communication;
(h) correspondent or columnist, cartoonist, editor,
owner of the association or company referred to in
clause (g).
8. Section 5 thereof stipulates that the Central
Government shall specify an organisation as an
organisation of a political nature not being a political party
as referred to in Section 3 (1) (f) having regard to the
activities of the organisation or the ideology propagated by
the organisation or association of the organisation with the
activities of any political party.
9. It is further provided in Section 5 (1) that the Central
Government may by Rules frame guidelines specifying the
ground(s) on which an organisation shall be specified as an
organisation of a political nature. Section 48 (2) (d)
9 | Page
empowers the Central Government to frame guidelines,
specifying the ground(s) on which an organisation may be
specified as an organisation of a political nature under
Section 5 (1). In exercise of power conferred under
Section 48, the Central Government framed the Foreign
Contribution (Regulation) Rules, 2011. Rule 3 of the Rules,
which is relevant for this case, is as follows:
“3. Guidelines for declaration of an organisation to be of
a political nature, not being a political party. – The
Central Government may specify any organisation as
organisation of political nature on one or more of the
following grounds:
(i) organisation having avowed political objectives in its
Memorandum of Association or bylaws;
(ii) any Trade Union whose objectives include activities
for promoting political goals;
(iii) any voluntary action group with objectives of a
political nature or which participates in political
activities;
(iv) front or mass organisations like Students Unions,
Workers’ Unions, Youth Forums and Women’s wing of a
political party;
(v) organisation of farmers, workers, students, youth
based on caste, community, religion, language or
otherwise, which is not directly aligned to any political
party, but whose objectives, as stated in the
Memorandum of Association, or activities gathered
10 | P a g e
through other material evidence, include steps towards
advancement of Political interests of such groups;
(vi) any organisation, by whatever name called, 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.”
10. A plain reading of Section 3 of the Act shows that
foreign contributions should not be accepted by a
candidate in an election or by a political party or office
bearer thereof and member of any legislature apart from
Judges and Government servants and those belonging to
the press, print and electronic media. As the dispute in
this case revolves around the organisations which are not
actively involved in politics, it is necessary to focus on the
provisions of the Act and the Rules governing such
organisations. Section 3 (1) (f) of the Act provides that an
organisation of a political nature is also barred from
receiving foreign contributions. Such an organisation of a
political nature may be specified under Section 5(1) by the
Central Government.
11. Section 5 of the 1976 Act provides that any
organisation of a political nature not being a political party
11 | P a g e
shall not accept any foreign contribution except with the
prior permission of the Central Government. However,
according to the 2010 Act, an organisation of a political
nature, as specified, is barred from accepting foreign
contributions. The procedure to notify an organisation of
a political nature is prescribed under Section 5 of the 2010
Act. Before declaring an organisation to be an
organisation of a political nature not being a political party,
the Central Government shall take into account the
activities of the organisation or the ideology propagated by
the organisation or the programme of the organisation or
the association of the organisation with the activities of
any political party. The Central Government is obligated in
terms of Section 5 (2) of the Act, to issue notice in writing
informing the organisation in respect of which the order is
proposed to be made of the ground(s) on which an order
under Section 5 (1) is proposed. As per Section 5 (3), the
organisation is to be given an opportunity to submit its
representation which shall be considered within the time
prescribed in Section 5 and an order is required to be
passed recording the reasons therefor.
12 | P a g e
12. Guidelines for declaration of an organisation to be an
organisation of a political nature not being a political party
are found in Rule 3 of the Rules. We are concerned with
Rules 3 (i), 3 (v) and 3 (vi) of the Rules, which are the
subject matter of challenge in this appeal.
13. The principal challenge of the Appellant-organisation
to Section 5 (1) of the Act is on the ground that the terms
‘activity, ideology and programme’ are vague and have not
been defined in the Act which result in conferring unbridled
and unfettered power on the executive. Therefore, the
Appellant-organisation contended that Section 5 (1) is
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Section 5 (4) is
also challenged on the ground that the authority to whom
a representation should be made has not been specified
and it is not clear whether the authority would be an
independent authority or the Central Government itself.
The High Court held that the words ‘activities of the
organisation, the ideology propagated by the organisation
and the programme of the organisation’ having nexus with
the activities of a political nature are expansive but cannot
be termed as vague or uncertain. Sufficient guidance is
13 | P a g e
provided by the Parliament in Section 5 and it is for the
rule making authority to lay down the specific grounds.
We are in agreement with the High Court that Section 5 (1)
does not suffer from the vice of vagueness inviting the
wrath of Article 14. Section 5 (4) cannot be declared as
unconstitutional only on the ground that the authority to
whom representation should be made is not specified. It is
relevant to note that no serious attempt has been made by
the Appellant-organisation to assail Section 5 (4) of the
Act.
14. The contention of the Appellant is that the guidelines
in Rule 3 of the Rules are vague giving scope for misuse
and abuse of power by roping in voluntary organisations
within the sphere of the Act. Thereby, an organisation
which has no interest in active politics can be deprived of
the right to receive foreign contribution at the whims and
fancies of the executive by resorting to the vague
guidelines in Rule 3. It was further submitted on behalf of
the Appellant that the words ‘political objectives’, ‘political
activities’, ‘political interests’ and ‘political action’ used in
Rule 3 have no clarity and any activity though not
14 | P a g e
connected with party politics can be brought into the fold
of Rule 3. Therefore, according to the Appellant-
organisation, Rules 3 (i), 3 (v) and 3 (vi) suffer from the
vice of over-breadth and are liable to be declared as
unconstitutional being violative of Article 14. According to
the Appellant-organisation, there is an infraction of Article
19 of the Constitution as the Rules are also unreasonable
and violate the freedom of speech and expression and the
right to form associations protected under Article 19 (1) (a)
and 19 (1) (c) of the Constitution.
15. We find force in the objection taken on behalf of the
Union of India that the Appellant-organisation is not
entitled to invoke Article 19. No member of the Appellant-
organisation is arrayed as a party. Article 19 guarantees
certain rights to ‘all citizens’. The Appellant, being an
organisation, cannot be a citizen for the purpose of Article
19 of the Constitution. (See: State Trading Corporation
of India Ltd. V. The Commercial Tax Officer,
Visakhapatnam, (1964) 4 SCR 99; Bennett Coleman
& Co. v. Union of India, (1972) 2 SCC 788 and Tata
Engineering and Locomotive Ltd. v. State of Uttar
15 | P a g e
Pradesh, (2011) 3 SCC 193). In the absence of any
member of the association as a petitioner in the Writ
Petition, the Appellant-organisation cannot enforce the
rights guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution.
16. The principal contention of the Appellant-organisation
is that the guidelines provided in Rule 3 are vague and
confer naked and untrammeled power on the executive
thereby giving the scope for arbitrary exercise of power. In
K. A. Abbas v. Union of India 4 this Court was of the
opinion that:
“46. The real rule is that if a law is vague or appears to
be so, the court must try to construe it, as far as may
be, and language permitting, the construction sought to
be placed on it, must be in accordance with the
intention of the legislature. Thus, if the law is open
to diverse construction, that construction which accords
best with the intention of the legislature and advances
the purpose of legislation, is to be preferred. Where
however the law admits of no such construction and the
persons applying it are in a boundless sea of
uncertainty and the law prima facie takes away a
guaranteed freedom, the law must be held to offend the
Constitution, this is not application of the doctrine of
due process. The invalidity arises from the probability of
the misuse of the law to the detriment of the individual.
If possible, the Court instead of striking down the law
4 (1970) 2 SCC 780
16 | P a g e
may itself draw the line of demarcation where possible
but this effort should be sparingly made and only in
the clearest of cases”.
17. It is settled principle of interpretation that the
provisions of the statute have to be interpreted to give the
words a plain and natural meaning. But, if there is scope
for two interpretations, the Courts have preferred
purposive construction, which is now the predominant
doctrine of interpretation5. In case of ambiguity in the
language used in the provision of a statute, the Courts can
take aid from the historical background, the Parliamentary
debates, the aims and objects of the Act including the long
title, and the endeavour of the Court should be to interpret
the provisions of a statute to promote the purpose of the
Act. (See: Chiranjit Lal Chowduri v. Union of India,
(1950) SCR 869; Union of India v. Elphinstone
Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd., (2001) 4 SCC 139).
18. The object sought to be achieved by the Act is to
ensure that Parliamentary institutions, political
associations and academic and other voluntary
5 Shailesh Dhairyawan v. Mohan Balkrishna Lulla, (2016) 3 SCC 619
17 | P a g e
organisations as well as individuals working in the
important areas of national life should function in a
manner consistent with the values of a sovereign
democratic republic without being influenced by foreign
contributions or foreign hospitality. The long title of the
Act makes it clear that the regulation of acceptance and
utilisation of foreign contribution is for the purpose of
protecting national interest. Candidates for election and
political parties or office bearers of political parties are
barred from accepting any foreign contribution. The
legislative intent is also to prohibit organisations of a
political nature from receiving foreign contributions. It is
clear that preventing foreign contribution into the political
arena is the object sought to be achieved by the Act.
Prevention of foreign contributions routed through
voluntary organisations which are not connected to party
politics is the reason behind introduction of Section 3 (1)
(f) and Section 5 of the Act. The Central Government is
required to take into account the activities, ideology or the
programme of the organisation including the association of
the organisation with activities of any political party before
18 | P a g e
declaring an organisation as an organisation of political
nature not being a political party. Guidelines that are
prescribed by the Rules indicate that only those
organisations which are actively involved in politics or
associated with political parties can be declared as
organisations of a political nature. The question that falls
for our consideration is whether the guidelines in Rule 3
suffer from vagueness and ambiguity and whether they
can be stated to be conferring uncanalised power on the
executive. According to Rule 3 (i) an organisation having
avowed political objectives in its memorandum of
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. Therefore, we find no substance in
the contention of the Appellant that Rule 3 (i) is ultra vires
the Act.
19 | P a g e
19. Rule 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. The submission made on behalf of the Appellant is
that such organisations agitating for their legitimate claims
cannot be prevented access to foreign funds by resorting
to the vague term ‘political interests’. We are in
agreement that the words ‘political interests’ are vague
and are susceptible to misuse. However, possible abuse of
power is not a ground to declare a provision
unconstitutional6.
20. Where the provisions of a statute are vague and
ambiguous and it is possible to gather the intention of the
legislature from the object of the statute, the context in
which the provisions occur and purpose for which it is
made, the doctrine of “reading down” can be applied 7. To
save Rule 3(v) from being declared as unconstitutional, the
Court can apply the doctrine of “reading down”.
6 Collector of Customs v. Nathella Sampathu Shetty, (1962) 3 SCR 786.
7 DTC v. Mazdoor Congress, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 600
20 | P a g e
21. A balance has to be drawn between the object that is
sought to be achieved by the legislation and the 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.
21 | P a g e
22. 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. 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, we hold that it is only those
organisations which have connection with active politics or
take part in party politics, that are covered by Rule 3 (vi).
To make it clear, such of those organisations which are not
involved in active politics or party politics do not fall within
the purview of Rule 3 (vi). We make it clear that
22 | P a g e
organisations used for channeling foreign funds by political
parties cannot escape the rigour of the Act provided there
is concrete material. In that event, the Central
Government shall follow the procedure prescribed in the
Act and Rules strictly before depriving such organisation
the right to receive foreign contributions.
23. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
……………………………..J.
[L. NAGESWARA RAO]
…………………………….J.
DEEPAK GUPTA]
New Delhi,
March 06, 2020.
23 | P a g e
Comments