The Delhi high court today asked the central government to unblock around Rs. 1.87 crore of the environmental NGO Greenpeace India that had been frozen.
Greenpeace was represented by advocates Sanjay Parikh, Mamta Saxena and Prachi Arya.
The funds were blocked by the Reserve Bank of India following a June 2014 home ministry directive that the NGO challenged in court.
Noting that the home ministry’s action was arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional, Justice Rajiv Shakdher observed the government had replied that the NGO could access all foreign funds except that of Greenpeace International, which has been put on a watch-list.
The court also observed that no material was put on record against Greenpeace International.
It said that NGOs are entitled to their viewpoint and merely because this might not be in consonance with that of the government’s, it didn’t that the NGO is acting against national interests.
In June last year, an Intelligence Bureau report submitted to the home ministry alleged Greenpeace India was misusing foreign funds to hamper India’s economic growth. The IB report was also cited by Essar in a defamation action against the NGO, as reported by Legally India at the time.
The ministry then directed the RBI to put on hold all foreign contributions originating from Greenpeace International and Climate Works Foundation meant for Greenpeace India.
The RBI was also asked to take the home ministry’s FCRA (Foreign Contribution Regulation Act) department before clearing any foreign aid to Greenpeace India.
The directive put on hold direct funding of the NGO from abroad since each transaction has to be cleared on a case-to-case basis by the RBI
Greenpeace India Society (GPIS) alleged in the court that the action taken by the central government was without any reason.
Comments
1. The accounts were frozen on the basis of a report from the Intelligence Bureau. Not someone's 'gut feeling'. And if my accounts were frozen on the basis of an IB report I doubt if u would want a judge setting it aside on the grounds that it was arbitrary. In such cases, the action must come first. No doubt an opportunity to explain would follow later.
2. I completely agree with you that a judge must not refuse to hear a party because of public opinion. I am not saying that at all. But the bank accounts of Greenpeace India were not frozen. The Govt. merely denied it funds from Greenpeace International. Yes maybe the whole thing involves politics more than law. But if the govt says an organization is on a watchlist (on the basis of an IB report) because of which it is restrained from sending massive funds into our country - maybe some restraint by judges would not be a bad idea.
Of the two- good of many and rights of some- who should we choose? How will development happen? How will national security be taken care of? Isn't public good important in comparison to the rights of a few individual??
These questions seem very difficult and and when posed to us, we seem to have no answers or we may side with the state/ government/ or the powerful. So how should we think about these issues?
One way out is to put ourselves in the shoes of such an individual and ask ourselves is it just/ Should I give up my rights?
Each individual's life and therefore rights are absolutely precious. So we must always think in terms of how best can the two be reconciled. It is not a halfway compromise that we should seek but something more- a collaborative, participatory and inclusive approach is needed. We can only ignore our fellow humans at our own peril lest we mend our current ways. The view taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court is a welcome step in establishing the principle of rule of law. No government should be allowed to act arbitrarily. The government cannot conveniently place some organisations in the 'threat to security' category, to suit their view of 'development'.