'Govt's smear campaign needs many answers'

These are the days when transnational corporations build links across the globe, invest and withdraw capital and resources at their wont in nations that suit or do not suit their interests, without any care for the consequences on human lives and environment. Such corporations are given all the freedoms to do as they will, when their interests can actually affect the economic interest of the country. Human rights groups and NGOs have been building global networks to address this tsunami and put forth alternative models of development.

But can suggesting, critiquing, conducting campaigns, protests and building up a lobby in support of one view be considered against public interest when these rights are guaranteed under the Constitution? Clearly, the government believes so.

In July 2014, the Union government prohibited the credit of foreign funds to the account of Greenpeace India without any enquiry. When Greenpeace asked through RTI, the information regarding the basis on which this was done, the response was that sharing such information was ‘prejudicial to public interest’, forcing the organisation to approach the Delhi High Court. 

In January, this year, the Delhi High Court asked the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) wing of the Ministry of Home affairs to unblock the funds of Greenpeace. Strongly faulting the government, Justice Rajiv Shakdher observed that merely because the NGO’s view point was not in consonance with that of the government, it cannot be held that the NGO’s act is against national interest. Serious concern was expressed by the judge who found the act of the government to freeze the account and then investigate it as “very uncommon.”

Clearly, the battle lines were drawn with Greenpeace as far as the government was concerned. On April 9, this year, a show cause was issued to the organisation for cancellation of its registration under the FCRA. On the same day, another order was issued suspending the registration of the organisation under the FCRA for a period of 180 days (as the Act stipulates), once again effectively freezing their bank accounts.

The order and the show cause issued on the same day do have details about certain alleged acts of utilisation of funds to which Greenpeace will no doubt respond.

 But what is of concern is that the suspension order equates this alleged misuse of funds to “prejudicially affecting public interest and the economic interest of the State.” So, as per the order, what are Greenpeace India’s acts that affect public interest ?

According to the government, the organisation violated the FCRA by incurring administrative expenditure, legal costs for seeking bails, writ petitions, providing additional funds in a separate trust to its employees, not disclosing payment of salaries, replacing its executive members without obtaining approval of the ministry and shifting its office from Chennai to Bengaluru! 

No doubt, the FCRA provides for strict stipulations for receiving foreign funds. But if these steps are defined as ‘acts prejudicial to public and economic interest of the State’, all organisations, institutions and individuals would be guilty one way or the other.

Blocking of funds

The process of blocking funds actually began with the UPA and is being fine tuned by the NDA. In 2011, funds were blocked in Tamil Nadu for various NGOs in a similar fashion without giving any notice. Two of them – the Rural Uplift Centre and Good Vision – moved the Madras High Court on the ground that no notice was given to them before such drastic acts, of freezing the accounts and cancelling their registration, were taken.  

Here too, the charge was “acting prejudicial to public interest,” when the allegations on the show cause were with regard to faulty accounting. Justice S Vimala quashed the proceedings as unsustainable, holding that even if the FCRA was silent on following the principles of natural justice, these cannot be excluded when rights of parties are violated affecting their civil rights.
In the case of Greenpeace, the reference to public interest is extremely vague and does not indicate any material on the basis of which the government considers Greenpeace India as a major threat to public interest and economic interest of the State.

However, clear indications have been given by the government that Greenpeace India’s position on environmental issues is against the State’s interests which of course would include the interests of transnational corporations. The rhetoric question of whose interestsre prejudicially affected really needs to be answered by the government before it goes on its smear campaign against all NGO’s, painting them with the same brush.

For too long any kind of criticism has been treated as an offence. Instead of addressing the critical concerns raised by Greenpeace, the response of the state has been to cripple them by stopping funds to prevent their activities.

(The writer is advocate practicing in the Madras High Court)