KOCHI — The Kerala High Court has set aside a decision by the Ministry of Home Affairs refusing to renew the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA) certificates of two charitable non-governmental organizations (NGOs) over allegations that they funded protests against the Vizhinjam International Transshipment Deepwater Seaport project.
Delivering the judgment in a batch of writ petitions, Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas held that peaceful dissent and demonstration are constitutionally guaranteed rights. The Court observed that executive or administrative disapproval of public agitations cannot transform the exercise of a fundamental right into an “undesirable purpose” or an act against the “public interest.”
Background of the Case
The petitions were filed by two registered non-profit organizations—Kerala Social Service Forum and Save a Family Plan India—both of which had held valid FCRA registrations since 1985.
In October 2023, the Ministry of Home Affairs rejected their 2021 applications for the renewal of their FCRA registration certificates under Sections 12(4)(a)(vi) and 12(4)(f)(iii) of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010. These provisions empower the central government to withhold or reject foreign contribution privileges if permitting an entity to receive funds is deemed likely to affect India’s sovereignty, security, or public interest, or if foreign funds are diverted toward undesirable purposes.
The Centre's decisions relied on intelligence reports from central security agencies. The reports claimed that the Latin Catholic Archdiocese of Trivandrum had led widespread protests against the Adani-developed Vizhinjam Seaport project in coastal Kerala, and asserted that foreign funds channelled through local diocesan societies were diverted to support agitators.
Subsequent revision petitions filed by the NGOs were also dismissed by central authorities without detailed written justifications, citing reasons related to national security.
Key Findings by the High Court
Upon examining the central intelligence dossiers and relevant administrative files, the High Court found multiple legal and procedural flaws in the government's stance:
- Absence of Direct Evidence: The Court noted that there was no evidentiary trail or concrete material linking the petitioner NGOs to the funding of agitators. Neither organization was featured on the agency's primary list of entities directly participating in or executing the port demonstrations.
- Right to Peaceful Protest: Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that even if an organization were to extend financial or logistical support to peaceful protesters, such act alone cannot be classified as an illegal diversion under the FCRA.
- Redefining 'Undesirable Purpose': The judgment clarified that the term "undesirable purpose" under Section 12(4) of the FCRA cannot be interpreted to mean undesirable to the government in power or contrary to political will. The Court remarked that administrative distaste for public dissent cannot convert a legitimate constitutional exercise into an offense against public interest.
- Mandate for Reasoned Orders: Highlighting Section 16(3) of the FCRA, the Court reaffirmed that administrative authorities must provide clear, objective reasons when refusing to renew an FCRA registration. The Court stated that an unreasoned administrative order is born out of whim rather than law, violating the principles of natural justice.
Court Ruling and Directive
Holding that the decision to refuse renewal was arbitrary, illegal, and grounded in irrelevant considerations, the Kerala High Court quashed the rejection orders issued against both NGOs.
The Court directed the Union Ministry of Home Affairs and relevant competent authorities to re-examine the renewal applications in light of the judicial observations made in the judgment and pass fresh orders within three months.
Discription: The Kerala High Court set aside the Central Government’s refusal to renew Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA) certificates for two NGOs—Kerala Social Service Forum and Save a Family Plan India. The Centre denied renewals claiming the NGOs diverted foreign funds to support protests against the Vizhinjam Seaport project.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas ruled that there was no concrete material proving the NGOs funded the agitators. The Court highlighted that peaceful protest is a constitutionally protected right, observing that administrative distaste for dissent cannot transform fundamental rights into an “undesirable purpose” under the FCRA.
Emphasizing that rejection orders require clear, unreasoned-free justifications under Section 16(3), the Court ordered authorities to issue fresh determinations within three months.