English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

SC Notice Doesnt Deter Govt, Uses Fin Bill Again To Amend Law To Allow Foreign Funding To Pol Parties

Published

on

SC Notice Doesnt Deter Govt, Uses Fin Bill Again To Amend Law To Allow Foreign Funding To Pol Parties

Already facing a Supreme Court notice on petition challenging amendments in law through money bill to legalise foreign funding to political parties, the government has once again sought to amend the repealed Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA), 1976, retrospectively through Finance Bill 2018.

This is seen as an attempt to wriggle out of legal wrangles that the BJP and Congress have got into over receiving foreign funds

The Delhi High Court had held the two parties guilty of receiving foreign funds from two subsidiaries of Vedanta, a UK-based company and issued contempt notice to the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) for not complying with its order.

Political parties are barred from receiving foreign funds under the Representation of the People Act and the FCRA. Facing a court case, in 2016, the government changed the definition of ‘foreign companies’ by amending the FCRA. This was done by moving the amendment as a Finance Bill, which cannot be blocked by the Rajya Sabha.

What is more, the amendment was made effective retrospectively. However, it only made valid the foreign donations received after 2010, the year when the 1976 Act was repealed and replaced with FCRA 2010.

Both BJP and Congress were allegedly receiving foreign funds for political activities from Vedanta from 2004 to 2012.

After a Delhi High Court notice, in an attempt to obtain relief for the two parties, the government has again proposed an amendment through the Finance Bill, 2018. It says, “Clause 217 of the Bill seeks to amend Section 236 of the Finance Act, 2016 which relates to amendment to sub-clause (vi) of clause (j) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 …. effect from the 5th August, 1976 the date of commencement of the FCRA, 1976, which was repealed and re-enacted as the FCRA, 2010.”

In Part XIX of the list of amendments in the 2018 Finance Bill, the “Amendment to the Finance Act, 2016”, entry number 217, reads: “In Finance Act, 2016, in section 236, in the opening paragraph, for the words, figures and letter ‘the 26th September, 2010’, the words, figures and letter ‘the 5th August, 1976’ shall be substituted.”

Further, The Indian Express reported quoting an unnamed official, “After Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) norms were relaxed, there were anomalies regarding the definition of foreign companies under the FCRA which were not amended. After seeking legal opinion, it was decided to amend the 1976 Act in the 2018 finance Bill.”

The FCRA of 1976 defined a foreign company as one with over 50 per cent foreign ownership, thereby disallowing the companies owned by foreign nationals or Indian-origin people based abroad and with foreign citizenship to fund and influence political parties in India.

This was inconsistent with the view of the Finance and the Commerce Ministries, which treated companies based in India and having Indian directors and employees as Indian subsidiaries.

Brief background:

The earlier retrospective amendment in 2016 did not apply to donations prior to 2010 while the Delhi High Court had in 2014 held that the donations were illegal. On March 28, 2014, the high court had ordered the Election Commission and the ministry of home affairs (MHA) to look into the accounts of parties and take action within six months.

The matter dragged on. The Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), the Delhi High Court moved a contempt petition in March 2017 against the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) pointing out that the directives of the High Court against the two political parties which received foreign funds were not complied with.

In October, 2017, the Delhi High Court bench of acting Chief Justice Gita Mittal and Justice C Hari Shankar gave further six months to MHA for complying with its 2014 judgment, which had found both parties flouting the FCRA norms by accepting donations from Indian subsidiaries of UK- based Vedanta Resources.

The MHA had sought extension of time till March 31, 2018 to comply with the court’s directions saying that the records were “voluminous in nature and a few decades old” hence it required more time to “collect, collate and then analyse them”.

Contesting the ADR’s contention that even after the lapse of three years the government remained in noncompliance with the judgment of the Delhi HC, the Centre argued that the ministry of corporate affairs was examining the share-holding patterns of the companies which have extended donations to the political parties.

After hearing the arguments the bench said it will give one last opportunity to the government and extended the time period by six months.

By the time six months were to be over, the Centre brought in the latest amendment.

ADR founder Jagdeep S Chhokar told India Legal/APN Live: “The contempt petition is still pending in the HC. Government lawyers have been seeking one adjournment after another, because they were trying to buy time to take care of the problem.”

“They (the government) seem to have come up with the solution: “make the amendment effective since 1976″. But the legal lacuna is that the 1976 Act was specifically repealed in 2010,” said Chhokar.

Calling it “patently illegal”, Chhokar said, “Question is how does one amend an Act that is dead. You can amend a law that is force but you can’t amend a law that does not exist.”

“In fact, if it is taken to its logical end, what they have done in the Finance Bill might land them in further trouble,” he added.

The Supreme Court in October 2017 had issued notice to the Centre on a plea by ADR challenging amendments to various statutes introduced through The Finance Act, 2017, and The Finance Act, 2016, both of which were passed as money bills, allegedly leading to illicit and foreign funding of political parties.

The statutes amended include the Income Tax Act, 1961, Representation of People’s Act, 1951, Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 (FCRA) and Companies Act, 2013.

The government brought in the latest amendment through the same route of Finance Bill even after receiving the Supreme Court notice on similar moves earlier and the case is still being heard.

There are at least 25 instances of the Congress and the BJP receiving funding from the ‘Indian’ subsidiaries of various foreign companies before 2010.  As the table below, compiled by ADR, shows, the parties have received funding in the range of Rs 5 lakh to Rs 5 crore from the Indian subsidiaries of Vedanta, Dow Chemicals and Switzerland-based Mundipharma over the course of six years from 2004 to 2010.

Company Amount (In Rupees) Year of Donation Political Party Parent Company
Hyatt Regency 5,00,000 FY 04-05 INC American Origin Company
Sterlite Industries Ltd 100,00,000 FY 04-05 INC Vedanta
Sesa Goa Ltd 5,00,000 FY 04-05 INC Vedanta
Sesa Goa Ltd 5,00,000 FY 04-05 INC Vedanta
Sesa Goa Ltd 2,00,000 FY 04-05 INC Vedanta
Adani Wilmer Ltd 2,50,000 FY 05-06 INC Adani Wilmar Limited is a 50:50 joint venture between the Adani Group and Wilmar International Limited
Sesa Goa Ltd 5,00,000 FY 05-06 INC Vedanta
Sesa Goa Ltd 5,00,000 FY 05-06 INC Vedanta
Sesa Goa Ltd 2,00,000 FY 06-07 INC Vedanta
Sesa Goa Ltd 15,00,000 FY 07-08 INC Vedanta
Adani Wilmer Ltd 5,000,000 FY 08-09 INC Adani – Wilmer JV
Solaries Holding Ltd 5,000,000 FY 09-10 INC Vedanta
Solaries Holding Ltd 5,000,000 FY 09-10 INC Vedanta
Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. 50,000,000 FY 09-10 INC Vedanta
Sesa Goa Ltd 30,00,000 FY 09-10 INC Vedanta
Sesa Goa Ltd Sesa Ghor 5,00,000 FY 05-06 BJP Vedanta
Win Medicare (P) Ltd 25,00,000 FY 05-06 BJP Swiss origin company
Sesa Goa Ltd 2,00,000 FY 06-07 BJP Vedanta
Dow Chemical Int (P) Ltd 1,00,000 FY 06-07 BJP Union Carbide acquirer
Sesa Goa Ltd 15,00,000 FY 07-08 BJP Vedanta
Sesa Goa Ltd 12,50,000 FY 07-08 BJP Vedanta
Adani Wilmar Ltd 50,00,000 FY 08-09 BJP Vedanta
Vedanta The Madras Aluminum Ltd 30,000,000 FY 09-10 BJP Vedanta
Vedanta The Madras Aluminum Ltd 50,00,000 FY 09-10 BJP Vedanta
Sesa Goa Ltd 50,00,000 FY 09-10 BJP Vedanta
Win Medicare (P) Ltd 25,00,000 FY 09-10 BJP Swiss origin company
Sesa Goa Ltd 10,00,000 FY 09-10 BJP Vedanta

India News

Delhi Police offers 11-person limit for CJP’s Connaught Place protest

Delhi Police has offered to facilitate a group of 11 people at Central Park in Connaught Place for the Cockroach Janata Party’s October 16 protest, while warning that violations of prohibitory orders could invite legal action.

Published

on

CJP protest to continue

Delhi Police has proposed allowing a group of 11 people to carry the national flag and sing the national anthem at Central Park in Connaught Place on October 16, ahead of a protest called by the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) over alleged electoral fraud.

The police said it could facilitate the group at a suitable place in the park, while appealing to the public not to join the proposed gathering in large numbers. The offer comes amid prohibitory orders in Connaught Place and adjoining areas under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke has called on people to assemble at Central Park at 5 pm on Friday with the national flag. The proposed demonstration, named “Lehra Do Tiranga”, follows the detention of CJP members Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka during an earlier protest.

Why Delhi Police proposed limiting the gathering

In its statement, Delhi Police cited the prevailing security and law-and-order situation in the area. It also referred to information from the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) that Central Park would remain closed on October 16 and 17 for administrative reasons.

Deputy Commissioner of Police Neha Yadav said the NDMC had informed the police about the closure and had asked that no gathering be allowed near the park.

The police also cited representations from trader and market associations in Connaught Place and surrounding areas. According to the police, the associations had raised concerns about unlawful assemblies and their impact on businesses, particularly during the festive season.

Police warned that violations of Section 163 BNSS would invite appropriate legal action. It also stressed that the national flag must be displayed and carried, and the national anthem sung, in the prescribed manner with due respect and dignity.

Delhi High Court declines to stop CJP protest

The proposed gathering reached the Delhi High Court after a vendor sought intervention over concerns about disruption to businesses and public movement in Connaught Place.

On Thursday, the court declined to restrain the CJP from holding the protest. It recorded the police’s assurance that all possible measures under the law would be taken to regulate the gathering and maintain peace.

The petition was filed by a vendor at Palika Bazar in Connaught Place, who raised concerns about the potential impact of the demonstration on traders and others working in the area.

Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, appearing for the authorities, told the court that steps had already been taken to regulate the proposed protest.

CJP’s protest call follows detention of party members

Dipke’s October 16 protest call follows earlier demonstrations over alleged electoral fraud. CJP members Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka are in jail on trespass charges after raising the national flag at Jantar Mantar earlier this week, according to the report.

The party has been protesting over alleged electoral fraud and has raised questions about the Election Commission.

Dipke has urged people to gather at Central Park with the national flag, arguing that raising the Tricolour should not be treated as a crime.

The police’s proposal to facilitate a group of 11 people came as the authorities sought to prevent a larger gathering at the site. The CJP’s response to the police’s offer was still awaited in the report published on October 15.

Continue Reading

India News

Actor Imran Khan asked to leave India after CJP protest

Actor Imran Khan has been asked to leave India by October 28, days after participating in a protest called by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) in Mumbai.

Published

on

Actor Imran Khan, nephew of Bollywood star Aamir Khan, has been asked to leave India by the Mumbai Police, days after participating in a protest organised by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) in Mumbai.

According to the notice, the actor has been given until October 28 to leave the country. The development follows his participation in the demonstration, which brought the actor into the spotlight over his involvement in a political protest.

Imran Khan is believed to hold US citizenship and an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) card rather than full Indian citizenship, according to the report.

What led to the notice against Imran Khan?

The notice came days after Imran Khan joined a protest called by the CJP in Mumbai. The group, described as a satirical political organisation, had called for the demonstration.

The actor’s participation was followed by action from the authorities, with the Mumbai Police directing him to leave India by the specified deadline.

The notice does not, by itself, mean that the actor has already left the country or has been deported. October 28 is the deadline mentioned for his departure.

Imran Khan and his citizenship status

Imran Khan is known for his work in Hindi films, including Jaane Tu… Ya Jaane Na and Delhi Belly. He is also the nephew of actor Aamir Khan.

The report states that Imran Khan is believed to be a US citizen and hold an OCI card. OCI status does not confer Indian citizenship, although it provides eligible foreign citizens of Indian origin with specified privileges under Indian law.

The notice directing the actor to leave India follows his participation in the Mumbai protest. The reported development has brought attention to the intersection of immigration rules and the participation of foreign nationals in political demonstrations.

Continue Reading

India News

Election Commission orders voter roll revision in 17 states, UTs

The Election Commission has ordered a Special Summary Revision of electoral rolls in 17 states and Union Territories. Draft rolls are scheduled for November 12, with final rolls due on January 4, 2027.

Published

on

The Election Commission of India (ECI) has ordered a Special Summary Revision (SSR) of electoral rolls in 17 states and Union Territories, with the exercise aimed at facilitating voter registration and including eligible electors who may have been left out during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR).

The order was issued on Thursday, October 15, amid continuing political controversy over the SIR process and concerns raised by opposition parties regarding the exclusion of names from electoral rolls.

Under the announced schedule, January 1, 2027, will be the qualifying date for the revision. The draft electoral rolls are scheduled to be published on November 12, while the final rolls are due on January 4, 2027. Uttar Pradesh and Punjab, two states included in the exercise, are scheduled to go to the polls by February 2027.

Which states and Union Territories are covered?

The Special Summary Revision will cover the following 17 states and Union Territories:

  • Andaman and Nicobar Islands
  • Assam
  • Bihar
  • Chhattisgarh
  • Goa
  • Gujarat
  • Kerala
  • Lakshadweep
  • Madhya Pradesh
  • Manipur
  • Puducherry
  • Punjab
  • Rajasthan
  • Tamil Nadu
  • Uttar Pradesh
  • Uttarakhand
  • West Bengal

The Election Commission’s order follows earlier instructions issued to state election officials on September 29 to undertake a special drive to enrol eligible voters who had been left out, along with young and first-time electors.

Why has the Election Commission ordered the revision?

The announcement comes amid protests and political disagreements over the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. Opposition parties have raised concerns about names being excluded during the exercise.

Another point of contention has been an additional declaration required from applicants submitting Form 6 for voter enrolment while the SIR was underway. The declaration required applicants to map their parents to the last SIR, which was conducted around 20 years ago.

The Election Commission had clarified on October 7 that the additional declaration applied only in states and Union Territories where the SIR was being conducted. It said the regular forms prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, would apply outside the SIR period.

The latest SSR order refers to applications for inclusion through Form 6 but does not mention the additional declaration.

What happens in states not covered by the current schedule?

The Election Commission has said that the schedule for the Special Summary Revision will be announced later in states and Union Territories where the SIR is ongoing or has recently been completed.

These include Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Chandigarh, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Daman and Diu, Haryana, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, the National Capital Territory of Delhi, Odisha, Sikkim, Tripura and Telangana.

For Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh, where the SIR has not yet started, the schedule for electoral roll revision will be announced in due course, taking local weather conditions into account.

The Election Commission’s latest order sets out a separate timeline for the 17 states and Union Territories covered by the current SSR exercise, while leaving the schedules for the other regions to be announced later.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com