NGOS VS. GOI: THE CONFLICTS AND SCRUTINIES No Fundamental or Absolute Right to receive Foreign Donations: Supreme Court Governance | GS2: NGO, SHG & Civil Society NotedStudents | From UPSC perspective, the follow Prelims level: FCRA, Mains level: Read the a © ‘The Parliament must = be credited with having taken recourse to corrective dispensation for eradicating the mischief, which any sover- eign country can ill-afford.... The Parliament is supreme and hasa final say in matters of legislation ‘SUPREME COURT 9 things are “The Supreme Court upheld amendments introducing restrictions in the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) while holding rat no one has a fundamental or absolute right to receive foreign contributions. What is FORA? + The FCRA regula and ensures that such contributions da not adversely affect internal securiy, + First enacted in 1976, it was amended in 2010 when a slew of new measures was ‘adopted to regulate foreign donations. + The FCRA\s applicable to all association, ‘groups and NGOs which intend to receive foreign donations + teis mandatory forall resales under the FRA. + The registration i inal vai for five years and ic can be renewed subsequent yf they comply with all ros. foreign donations ‘Why was FCRA enacted? + The FCRA sought to consolidate the acceptance and utisation of foreign contribution or frcign hospitality by individuals, associations oF companies. + sought to prohibit such contributions from being used for actives detrimental rational interest. ‘What was the recent Amendment? + The FCRA was amended in September 2020, NGOs 0 register The Government says tid so because found that mary recipients were wanting in compliance with provisions relating to fling of annual eturs and maintenance of accounts Many did not use the funds rece ‘the intended objectives Ie claim thatthe annual inflow as foreign contributions almost doublee between 2010 and 2019, The FCRA registration of 19000 organisations was canceled and, in sore cx prosecution was also initiated How has the law changed? “There are at least three major changes that NGOs find toa recive Prohibition of fund transfer: An amendment Section 7 of the Act completly prohibits ‘the wansfer of foreign funds received by an organisation to ary other individual or Directed and single bank account: Another ‘amendment mandates that every person {er association) granted certificate or prior permission ta receive overseas funds must ‘open an FCRA bank account in a designated branch ofthe SBl in New Debi Uslization of funds: Fund Al foreign funds should be received only in tis account and none other. However the recipients are allowed to open another FCRA bank account in any scheduled bank for utilisation, + Shared information: The designated bank will nform authortes about any foreign remizance with details about is source and the manner in which f was received, + Aadhaar mandate: In adsition, the ‘Government i also authorised to take the ‘Aachaar numbers of all the key functionaries ‘of any organisation that apples for FCRA, registration or for prior approval fr recving foreign funds. + Cap on administrative expenditure: Another cchange's thatthe portion ofthe receipts alowed as administrative expenditure has ben reduce from 50% t0 20% What isthe criticism against these changes? + Arbitrary restrictions: NGOs questioning ‘the law consider the prohibition on vansfer rotary and too heavy a restriction. NNon-sharing of funds: One of its consequences is that recipients cannot fund ‘other organisations, When foreign help is received as material, t becomes impossible toshare the aid + Irationality of designated bank accounts: “There is no rational nk between designating ‘particular branch ofa bank with the ‘objective of preserving nationalinterest, + Unvease of operation: Due to Delhi based bank aocount itis als inconvenient as te NGOS might be operating elsewhere. + logical narrative: National security cannot be ched asa reason without adequate justifeation as observe by the Supreme Courein Pegasus Case. ‘What does the Government say? + Zero tolerance against intervention: The ‘amendments were necessary to prevent foreign stare and non-state actors from interfering with the countrys polity and internal mars. + Diversion of foreign funds: The changes ‘are also needed to prevent malpractces by INGOs and diversion of foreign funds, + Fund flow monitoring: The provision of having one designated bank for receiving foreign funds is aimed at making it easier to ‘monitor the fow of funds. Ease of operation: The Government clarified that there was ne need for anyone to come to Delhi to open the account ast can be done remotely. What did the Supreme Court observed now? + The apex court reasoned that unbridled inflow of foreign funds may destabilise the sovereignty of the nation. The pettioners have argued that the amencimentssufered from the vice of ambiguity, over-breacth or over-covernance an violated ther fundameral rights+ Butthe court countered that the amendments only provide astrit regulatory framework 10 moderate the inflow of foreign funds into the county + Free and uncontrolled inflow of foreign funds has the potential co impact the socio. economic structure and poly ofthe county. + Noone can be heard to claim a vested right to accept foreign danations, much lesan absolute right, sald the verdict. ‘Supreme Courts assessment of Foreign Funds + Philosophical foreign convibuton (donation is akin to ratifying intxicant replete with medicinal properties and may work like a nectar + However it serves as a medicine solong 2s tis consumed (used) moderately ‘and discreetly, fr serving the larger cause cof human. + Otherwise, this artifice has the capability of inflcting pain, suring and turmoil as being caused by the toxic substance (potent tool) ‘cross the nation, Way forward he court sid charity could be found at home. NGOs coulé look within the country for donors. + Fundamertalrights have to give way inthe larger public interest tothe need to insulate the democratic polity from the adverse influence of foreign contributions. + The third-world counties may welcome foreign donations, but tis open to a nation, ‘which s committed and enduring to be selfreliant. + An unregulated inflow of foreign donations ‘would only indicate thatthe government was incapable of looking attr its own afar anc needs of ts ctizens, FREEDOM OF SPEECH - DEFAMATION, SEDITION, ETC, SC fixes final hearing on Sedition Law Polity | GS2: Indian Cons significant provisions and basic structure NotedStudents | From UPSC perspective, the following thi Prelims level: Section 124 IPC Mains level: Sedition law and Free speee “The Supreme Court has fixed May 5 for fnal hearing ofthe petitions challenging the constitutonaliy ofthe sedition law and made it clear that wil not brook any delay inte form of request for adjournment. ‘What isthe Sedition Law? + Section 1240 of the Incian Penal Code ays down the punishment for sedition. The IPC was enacted in 1860, under the Brilsh Ra + The then British government in India feared ‘that religious preachers onthe Indian subcontinent would wage a war against the government. + Particularly ater the successtl suppression ofthe Wahabi/Wafullzh Movernent by the Brish, he need was fl for such law. “Throughout the Raj this section was used te suppress activists in favor of national independence, including Tilak and Mahatma Gandhi, both of whom were found guiky and imprisoned, ‘What is Section? + The Section 124A defines setonas ‘An ofence committed when any person by ‘words, ether spoken or writtn, or by signs oF by visible representation, or otherwise brings lor attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, (or excites or attempts to excite disafection towards the government established by law in Inia + Disaection includes dsloyaly and all feelings of enmity. ion - historical underpinnings, evolution, festures, amendments, + However comments without ingor attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, wil not constitute an offense + Sedition i a nor-balabe offense Punishment under Section 124A ranges fromimprisonment up to thre years toa Ife termthivithout a fine Sedition as a cognizable offense * Sedition was made a cognizable offense for ime in history in India during the Prime Minister Indica Gandhi in 1973, thai arest without a warrant was now permissible + 11962 the Supreme Court of India interpreted the section to ape only it theres say, inctement to volenoe or ‘overthrowing a demecratcaly elected ‘government through violent means Is constitutionally valid? * Violatve of FRs: Two high courts ad found itunconstitutional ater Independence, {as tviolated the feedor of speech and + Reasonable restrictions: The Constitution ‘was amended to include pubic order a8 one ‘ofthe reasonable restrictions on which ree speech could be abridgec by law. + Kedar Nath Case: Thereafter, the Supreme Coun, in Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962) upheld is validity. + Limited use: At the samme time, ited ts application to acts that invole intention or tendency o create disorder or ieternent to valence + Strong eriticism doesnt amount to sedition: Thus, even strongly worded remarks, as long as they do not excite dslyaly and enmity, or incite violence, are net an offence under this section Why the controversy now? + Frequent use: In recent ties, the resort to this section i seen as disturbingly frequent + Curbing dissent: Activists, cartoonists and intellectuals have been arrested under this section, drawing ercism from liberals that itis being used to suppress dissent and Sllence erie, + Misuse for propaganda : Authorities and the pole wna invake this section defend ye moasure asa necessary stop to prevent public disorder and ant-natonal activites. + Ielevance: Mary of them have also been etained under the National Securty Actand UAPA. ‘What is being debated about it? Demand for its scrapping: Liberals and rights activists have been demancing the scrapping of Section 1244, + Provision is outdated: I is argued that the provision i overbroad, ie. defines the offence in wide terms threatening theliberyy of eizens. + Various eals fr its reconsideration: The aw Comission has alo caled for a reconsideration ofthe section. + Tyranny of the la: It has pointed that Britain abolshed it more than a decade {90 and raised the question of whether 3 provision introduced by the British to put own the foadom stugale should continue tobe bw in Ind+ Doctrine of severablty: Some argue that 8 presumption of constutionaiy does not ppb to pre-consttutional laws as those laws have been made by foreign legislature or bodies. Way forward Indias the largest democracy inthe world and therigit to fre speech and expression is an essential ingredient of democracy. + The sedition kaw should not be abolished as some measures are needed o check communal violence & insurgency activites Tae Naval + The defnition of sedition should be narrowed down, to include only the issues pertaining to ‘the tertorial integrity of India as well s the sovereignty of he country. + Section 124A should not be misused as 2 tool to cutb free spoech Try answering this PYQ: [With reference to Rowlat: Satyagraha, which ofthe folowing statements isare 1. The Rowlatt Act was based onthe recommendations ofthe Sedition Commitee. 2. In RowlattSatyagraha, Gandhi tried to utlze the Home Rule League. 3. Demonstrations against the atval of ‘Simon Commission coincided with Rowlat Sayagrahe. ‘Select the correct answer using the code ‘ven below: (a) tonly (0) and 2 only (@)2and 3 only (o)1.2and3 Also read neps:AwwwcivlsdalycomVouming issue should-editionlaw-be-scrapped! Mother Nature a “living being’ with legal entity: Madras HC Enviro & Biodiversity | GS3: Conservation, Environmental Pollution & Degradation, ia NotedStudents | Fr Prelims level Mains level: Nat oO ‘The court is hereby declaring Mother Nature a Living Being having the status of a legal person with all corresponding rights, duties and liabilities of a living person, in order to preserve and conserve it JUSTICES. SRIMATHY Med Holling that isthe right time to confer jurist status Mother Nature, Jussoe S,Srimathy ‘ofthe Madurai Bench of Madras High Court invoked the paren patriae jurisdiction, and declared Mather Nature as lving being having the status of legal erty ‘What is the news? = The Madras HC observed that Mother Nature was accorded the rights akin to fundamental rights, legal rights, constitutional ight ots survival, safety, sustenance and resurgence in order to ‘maintain ts status ad aso to promote its heal and wellbeing Legal rights for nature: A backgrounder + The movement for legal personhood for ‘the envionment and animals began in the 1970s. Jench of Madras High Court + This concept was articulated by Christopher D.Stone in his thes, Shoulé Trees Have Standing + In this compeling piece, the author makes {an argument forthe environment to have independent legal rights, much like what was ‘granted by the judgment ofthe Uttarakhand High Court in 201 + He highlights how the theory of hts has developed over the years and that many inanimate objects have both rights and lgal cuties. They can sue and be sued, What isthe ease for Madras HCs personification of nature? * The Macras HC has made @personfcation ‘of nature that focuses on the ie-giving and rururing aspects of nature by embodying it, inthe form of the mother, Ik observed that the cour is hereby declaring Mother Nature a lvng being having te status of egal person with al corresponding rights, duties and fables of allving person, in order to preserve and + The State and Central governments are rected to protect Mother Nature and take appropriate stes inthis regard in all possible ways ‘A different course: Ecological Jurisprudence + The onset of climate change and the potential mass exintion of species is ‘accompanied bythe oradual closing window ‘of opportunity to take meaningful action. + Activists around the world are ‘alg for anthropocentic legal and governance systems to be replaced with ‘ecoventve ones. + The last 15 years have seen a dramatic increase inthe numberof laws based on ‘ecological jurisprudence. + Eeological jurisprudence is a philosophy nat sees nature not asa set of objects tobe exploited but as a community of subjects (humans and non-humans) who are connected through interdependent, reciprocal relationships Ingia’s typical case * In 2097 the Unaraktand HC rule (in ‘wo separate ordes) tna the Ganga, the ‘Yamuna, their tributaries, and the glaciers and catchments feeding these rivers in Uuarakrand had rights asa juristie/legal personv/living entiy. + Ip 2018, the same HC ruled tht the entre animal kingdom had rights similar to that ofa living person (Narayan Dutt Bhatt vs Union of ina. + In March 2020, the Punjab and Haryana High Court passed an order declaring the Sukhna Lake in Chandigarh city a ving entity, with Fights equivalent o that ofa person,Beyond Rights ‘What would account for violations? + ebvings out te bizare fact thatthe Lawisa modem human construct. Itnat__* The Uttarakhand court order didnot mention human-drawn nation state, and political ‘only talks inthe language of hts and what amounted to violation of rights lines on maps in various pars of he word duties that only humans understand but of rivers have created confictstuatiors or distupted also operationalzes them in away thatcan > Inorder tobe abe to trulyexercse the rights ancient cukural and ecological ows and further entrench humancenteredness, and implement appropriate redress there is relations. + Inmast cases where natures rights are ‘3 need fr a comprehensive efition ofthe + We need to begin reimagining governance recognized inlay, they have done so by ‘actions that amount to violavon ofthe rights. froma bioregional govemance point of view. extending to it the concept of personhood in + Say, the violation ofthe rights of rivers may + This would also mean bridging the gap other words akin to humans and, therefore, _be defined as ary obstruction or impediment between the customary ways of decision having human rights. that disables the entiyfrom performing its making and the current egal frameworks. + Hence, any such movement on recognizing essential ecological functions + There isa need for more imaginative myers, the rights ofthe rest of nature must challenge ‘activists and judges to help move towards an the fundamental forms of injustices, including Restitution and compensation ‘eco-cenivic and diverse legal framework. capitalm,statelsm, anthropocenvism and * The New Zealand law hasan extensive patriarchy, section lending itself toresttutive, restorative Way forward and compensatory ation, + There isa need fora comprehensive sytem Significance of such status + Teacknowledged the governments decisions ta implement and protec thei rights += These rights-based laws granting legal and actions for more than a century that + The rights can be safeguarded using the personhood for nature aim to shift the legal resulted in the violation ofthe health ofthe principles of custodianship status ofthe natural werd from being human Whanganui andthe rights, culture and well-_» The Usarakhend High Court order named property to ving entities in their own right being. the indigenous people ving along several goverment functionaries and a and subjects of la the ives ‘couple of independent lvners as parents. + This quarantes thet right to ext tive, + Several specific examples were given, + An alternative solution s that custocianship ‘evolve and maintain thei natural ces including the dismantling oF traditional ‘or guardianship be given to a body of local + These rights are not conferred by humans; structures for fishing and rive use, ‘cornmunities associated with the river. itis a recognition tha these rights have hnydroeletic project and mining + These communities have traitonal always existed, + Such an acknowledgment isa necessary frst customary rights of the river such as + Telays upon humans the duty to act as step towards seeking appropriate resttuve _fisherfolk farmers along the riverbank, ‘uardians for the morethan-human word, and compensatory measures, and people cirectly engaged in ver- related services, lesues of implementation ‘Another question: Bioregional Governance + Assuming that these rights are recognised, ~ Recognizing river ecosystems or other nature or any of entity cannot represent entities of nature as having rights ofers itself ina cour: of law. the possibilty of managing and govering + Moreaver there is the issue of custadianship, habitats based on the ecological reales of the region