Madras HC stays suspension of Greenpeace FCRA registration

CHENNAI: Nixing the Centre’s bid to choke the foreign fund flow of Greenpeace India Limited, the Madras high court on Wednesday stayed a Union home ministry order cancelling the Foreign Contributions (Regulation) Act, 2010 registration number of the society.
Justice M M Sundresh stayed the cancellation order dated September 2, issued by the foreigners division of the Union home ministry of home affairs, and issued notice to it, returnable in eight weeks.
Assailing the cancellation order, Greenpeace India Limited’s executive director filed the present petition saying the Centre was taking recourse to the “draconian and unconstitutional” provisions of the FCRA, after having been thwarted in its earlier misadventures.
“First they suspended the petitioner’s registration number under the FCRA and issued order to freeze the petitioner’s bank account, including accounts used purely for deposit of domestic funds,” the petition said.
Greenpeace had already fought several rounds of litigations, including one where it won an order permitting the society to access its domestic funds, on the ground that domestic funds were beyond the scope of the FCRA.
The order cancelling FCRA registration of the society has been on nine grounds including one which says Greenpeace transferred its foreign contributions worth Rs 8.05 lakh in 2010-11 to employees of Greenpeace Environment Trust in violation of FCRA rules.
The charge was wholly false, the society said, adding that no such transfer was ever made in violation of the law.
The Centre also alleged that Greenpeace utilized more than 50% of foreign contributions for 2011-12 and 2012-13, for administrative expenditure, which is prohibited by Section 8(1)(b) of the FCRA. The present petition said it too was a false charge.
Though the Centre claims to possess “information and evidence” to conclude that Greenpeace has violated FCRA provisions, the society has not been furnished any copy of any such information or evidence, despite repeated requests, the petition said, adding: “The society, thereby, has been denied an opportunity to defend itself.”
Even typographical errors in its documents have been concluded as misstatements and willful default, the petition said, adding that even before the impugned cancellation order was passed, press releases were issued betraying the mala fide intention of the Union government.