In a major ruling, the Kerala High Court has set aside the Union Ministry of Home Affairs’ (MHA) decision to deny Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) registration renewals to two Kerala-based charitable organisations.
Presiding over the case, Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas quashed the rejection and revision orders on August 11, ruling that the Intelligence Bureau (IB) reports relied upon by the central government failed to establish any violations by either organisation. The court directed the competent authority to reconsider both renewal applications within three months.
Overview of the Organizations Affected
Both petitions were filed by long-standing charitable entities that have held valid FCRA registrations since 1985:
-
Kerala Social Service Forum: A Kottayam-based apex body coordinating 32 Catholic Diocesan Social Service Societies.
-
Save A Family Plan India: A charitable trust based in Kanjoor, Ernakulam.
Court’s Key Findings on the Intelligence Bureau (IB) Reports
Although the Centre submitted classified security agency reports in sealed covers to justify its decision, judicial scrutiny revealed significant gaps:
-
No Questionnaire Violations: The IB report’s standard 15-question checklist—which checks for misuse/diversion of funds, forced religious conversions, communal tension, and statutory contraventions—recorded “No” to every violation parameter.
-
Unsupported Inferences: Adverse observations appeared strictly in the recommendation section, linking the NGOs tangentially to the Vizhinjam seaport project protests.
-
Lack of Evidence:
-
Kerala Social Service Forum was targeted due to its affiliation with the Kerala Catholic Bishops Council, which supported the Vizhinjam agitation.
-
Save A Family Plan India was implicated over funds transferred to a third party (Trivandrum Social Service Society) accused of aiding the protests.
-
The court termed this chain of allegations “too far-fetched” and noted there was zero evidence establishing a financial trail from either petitioner to the protesters.
-
Major Legal & Constitutional Observations
“Executive disagreement with dissent cannot turn the exercise of a constitutional right into an undesirable activity.” — Kerala High Court
-
Scope of ‘Undesirable Purpose’: The court clarified that the phrase “undesirable purpose” under the FCRA cannot be interpreted as simply anything undesirable to the government or contrary to its political stance. Peaceful protest remains a constitutionally protected right.
-
Administrative Transparency: The High Court rejected the Centre’s assertion that reasons for rejection can automatically be withheld under the guise of security agency involvement, deeming both rejection orders “wholly perverse.”
Interim Relief & Legal Impact
-
Fund Access: In the case of Save A Family Plan India, the court permitted the interim utilization of ₹16.72 crore already received while its licence was valid. However, fresh foreign contributions remain barred until a new decision is made by the MHA.
-
Legal Representation: Advocate Karthika Maria, appearing for the petitioners, highlighted that the judgment reinforces constitutional accountability, establishing that executive power cannot rely on suspicion, secrecy, or arbitrary action under the blanket term “national security.”
