Summary
The Supreme Court rejected the vagueness challenge to sections 5(1) and 5(4) of the FCRA, while reading Rules 3(v) and 3(vi) as confined to organisations connected with active or party politics. Legitimate social advocacy and dissent without political goals did not alone justify denial of foreign contributions under those rules. Political parties’ use of organisations to channel foreign funds remained actionable on concrete material and strict observance of statutory procedure.
Issues
- Whether the challenged FCRA designation provisions and guidelines were unconstitutionally vague.
- Whether social advocacy or legitimate protest alone made an organisation political for these rules.
- Whether the organisation could enforce Article 19 rights without an individual member as petitioner.
Provisions considered
- Rules 3(i), 3(v) and 3(vi), Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Rules, 2011Rule 3(i) concerned avowed active or party-political objectives; the other challenged guidelines were read down to the same political connection. (¶¶ 9, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22)
- Articles 14 and 19, Constitution of IndiaThe vagueness challenge was considered under Article 14; Article 19 was unavailable to the organisation in the absence of a member as petitioner. (¶¶ 13, 15)
Held
- The statutory references to activities, ideology and programme supplied sufficient guidance and were expansive rather than unconstitutionally vague. Section 5(4) was not invalid merely because the authority receiving a representation was not specified; that challenge had not been seriously pursued. (¶ 13)
- The organisation could not invoke rights guaranteed to citizens under Article 19 without any individual member having joined as petitioner. (¶ 15)
- Rule 3(i) addresses avowed objectives of participation in active or party politics and was not impermissibly vague. The Act’s purpose is to prevent foreign funding from influencing the political arena. (¶ 18)
- The expression concerning political interests in Rule 3(v) must be confined to active or party politics. Organisations pursuing social and economic welfare without such connection cannot be included merely through an expansive reading of that expression. (¶¶ 19, 20, 21)
- Rule 3(vi) likewise covers organisations connected with active or party politics. Supporting citizens’ rights through legitimate dissent without political goals does not alone justify political designation. Organisations channeling foreign funds for political parties remain subject to the Act on concrete material, with strict compliance with its procedure and the Rules. (¶ 22)
Result
Appeal disposed of with the stated construction of the challenged rules. Sections 5(1) and 5(4) and Rule 3(i) were not struck down; Rules 3(v) and 3(vi) were preserved through the limiting interpretation.