BJP & Congress Caught Red Handed Violating FCRA; Two Sides of the Same Coin

Must Read

An Analysis of the Supreme Court of India’s Decision in Saurav Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh on Reservation

Reservation is one of the debatable realities of Indian constitution. This system got its roots from the exploitations due...

Explained: The Political Crisis in Nepal

On December 20th, K P Sharma Oli, the Prime Minister of Nepal dissolved the Lower House Parliament of the...

Can the Relatives of the Husband Attract Prosecution in Case of Triple Talaq?

The Supreme Court of India has recently made a judgement. It lays down that the relatives of the husband...

Explained: The Right to be Forgotten in India

Right to Privacy is an essential fundamental right which has been enshrined in the Indian Constitution under Article 21...

How will the New WhatsApp Privacy Policy Affect Us?

On January 4, 2020, the California based tech giant WhatsApp announced its new privacy law. It allows data integration...

India’s International ‘Retrospective Taxation’ Regime Vis-a-Vis PCA Rulings in Vodafone and Cairn in 2020

The imposition of retrospective taxation of foreign companies doing business in India has been at the helm of controversy...

Follow us

In the major crackdown on the two major political parties of India i.e., the Bhartiya Janta Party and the Indian National Congress, the Supreme Court has issued a notice to the Centre seeking its response on a plea alleging that the recent amendments to the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act, 2010 popularly known as FCRA, have opened the door for the unlimited foreign contribution to the political parties. It is believed that the amendments are seeking to protect these two political parties, which were held guilty by the Delhi High Court in 2014 for accepting foreign funding which is in contravention to FCRA.

What does the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act speak?

The enactment of Foreign Contribution Regulation Act, 1976 by the Parliament was aimed for restraining constitutional institutions, political parties as well as individuals such as candidates in the election from accepting the foreign donation, which would hamper the Sovereign, democratic, Republic value of the country. The purpose of the Act was to serve as a protective shield in the legislative armoury, in conjugation with other laws like the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, and insulate the sensitive areas of the national life like – journalism, judiciary, politics from extraneous influences stemming from beyond our borders. Section (e) of the said Act defines the “Foreign Source” which includes: –

  1. the government of any foreign country or territory and any agency of such government,
  2. any international agency, not being the United Nations or specialized agencies, the World Bank, International Monetary Fund or such other agency as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf.
  3. a foreign company within the meaning of section 591 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), and also includes
  4. a company which is a subsidiary of a foreign company, and
  5. a multi-national corporation within the meaning of this Act.
  6. a corporation not being a foreign entity, incorporated in a foreign country or territory,
  7. a multi-national corporation within the meaning of this Act,
  8. a company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956, if more than one-half of the nominal value of its share capital is held, either singly or in the aggregate, by one or more of the following, namely, –
  • the government of a foreign country or territory,
  • citizens of a foreign country or territory,
  • corporations incorporated in a foreign country or territory,
  • trusts, societies or other association of individuals (whether incorporated or not), formed or registered in a foreign country or territory.”

Delhi High Court founds BJP and Congress both guilty of violating FCRA, 1976

On 28.03.2014, in a writ petition filed by Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) the Delhi High Court held both BJP and Congress guilty of violating FCRA, 1976. The petition highlighted the donations made to the political parties by M/s Sterlite Industries Ltd. And M/s Sesa Goa Ltd., companies registered in India under the Companies Act, 1956 and more than 50% of their issued share capital was held by Vedanta Resources PLC, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1985 and registered in England and Wales with registration No. 04740415. The Hon’ble High Court directed the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and Election Commission of India (ECI) to take action against the two political parties within six months. But more than four years have lapsed, and none of the directions of the Hon’ble High Court has been complied with till date.

Appeal in Apex Court by Association for Democratic Reforms in Apex Court for amendment in FCRA

The petition before the Apex Court was filed by the Founder-trustee of the Association for Democratic Reforms Jagdeep S. Chhokar and former bureaucrat E.A.S. Sarma. In their petition they challenged the amendment done retrospectively in FCRA through Finance Bill, 2016 and Finance Bill, 2018 on the grounds that the legislature had made an attempt to overturn the Judgment of the Hon’ble High Court, which holds both BJP and Congress guilty of receiving foreign donations, the act of the legislature, therefore, is in contravention to the basic structure of the constitution and threat to the judiciary independence.

How Finance Bill redefined foreign companies under FCRA?

The government in order to turn down the High Court order, for the first time used the Finance Bill as a tool to bring an amendment in 2016 to the FCRA, 2010. The amendment made in the FCRA is to change the definition of what constitutes the foreign company in such a way that key beneficiaries of UK-based Vedanta Group, the BJP, and Congress, would not face legal scrutiny for donations received from 2010 onward. The amendment was brought to the definition of ‘Foreign Source’ in the FCRA, 2010 whereby a proviso has been added which states that: –

Provided that where the nominal value of share capital is within the limits specified for foreign investment under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, or the rules or regulations made thereunder, then, notwithstanding the nominal value of share capital of a company is more than one-half of such value at the time of making the contribution, such company shall not be a foreign source”.

Does the legislature have the power for retrospective amendment in order to overturn the Judgment of the court?

It is pertinent to mention that the legislature vide section 54 (1) of FCRA, 2010 had already repealed FCRA 1976 and through retrospective amendment was added to the definition of ‘Financial Source’ under section 2 in the FCRA, 2010, which means if their ownership in an Indian entity was within the foreign investment limits prescribed by the government for that sector, was made retrospectively only from 2010.

A new amendment in the Finance Bill, 2018 seeks to amend the 2016 amendment so that BJP and Congress are exempted from receiving donation after August 5, 1976, the date on which FCRA, commenced.

It seems to be from the conduct of the political parties that by misusing the legislative powers, they have moulded their usage for fulfilling their usage for personal motives than using them for the public benefit and improving the standard of their living. By extending the applicability of a retrospective amendment from 1976, the legislature has tried to breach the basic structure of the constitution and has violated the principle of separation of power.

The Supreme Court in State of Karnataka and Ors. v. The Karnataka Pawn Brokers and Ors. held that the Parliament has the power to amend laws with retrospective effect. But this can be done to remove causes of invalidity. When such a law is passed the Legislature basically corrects the errors which have been pointed out in a judicial pronouncement. Resultantly it can amend the laws, by removing the mistakes committed in the earlier legislation, if this is done than it would not amount to statutory overruling. However, the legislature cannot set aside the judgment which has been pronounced by amending the law, not for the purpose of making corrections or removing anomalies but to bring in new provisions which did not exist earlier. Meaning thereby, the legislature may have the power to remove the basis or foundation of the judicial pronouncement but the legislature cannot overturn or set aside the judgment, that too retrospectively by introducing a new provision.

This is what legislature has done, in order to turn down the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court, it passed a retrospective amendment to the FCRA through the support of Finance Bill, 2016 and Finance Bill, 2018 which validates their foreign contribution from 2010 and 1976 respectively. As seen from the Hon’ble High Court Judgment, there doesn’t arise question to rectify anything or remedy the situation, hence the legislature action of bringing such amendment to turn down the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court is against the law.

The government amended FCRA bypassing Rajya Sabha treating it as Money Bill

Since the Government is not in the majority in the upper house, it cleverly introduced amendments in the Finance Bill, 2018 and passed it as a Money Bill, thereby bypassing the Rajya Sabha, which is therefore unconstitutional and against the basic structure doctrine. Article 110 (1) defines money bill and Article 109 provides for the special procedure in respect of the money bill which states that the money bill can be introduced only in the lower house. Meaning thereby the upper house doesn’t play any vital role in the passing of Money Bill, it can only provide a suggestion to the lower house, which it is not bound to accept. A money bill as per article 110 (1) is a bill which contains provisions dealing with all or any of the following matters, namely-

  1. The imposition, abolition, remission, alteration or regulation of any tax;
  2. The regulation of the borrowing of money or the giving of any guarantee by the Government of India or the amendment of the law with respect to any financial obligations undertaken or to be undertaken by the Government of India;
  3. The custody of the Consolidated Fund or the Contingency Fund of India, the payment of money into or the withdrawal of money from any such Fund;
  4. The appropriation of money out of the consolidates Fund of India;
  5. The declaring of any expenditure to be expenditure charged on the Consolidated Fund of India or the increasing of the amount of any such expenditure;
  6. The receipt of money on account of the Consolidated Fund of India or the public account of India or the custody or issue of such money or the audit of the accounts of the Union or of a State; or
  7. Any matter incidental to any of the matters specified in sub-clause (a) to (f).

According to the provisions of the article 117 (1) of the constitution of India, a bill which makes provisions for any of the above-mentioned matters, and additionally with any other matter is called a Financial Bill. Therefore, the finance bill may be a money bill if it deals only with the matters specified above, and not with any other extraneous matter as otherwise it would be categorized as a Financial Bill. Since the Lok Sabha has effectively bypassed the Rajya Sabha by passing it as Money Bill, therefore an amendment to FCRA cannot be stated to be an amendment which can be covered in the definition of a Money Bill.

Amendment in FCRA poses a serious threat to the internal interference of the Foreign Companies

The citizens of India through democratic process elect their representatives through the election to form the government so as to build a welfare state and to protect the citizens from socio-economic and political oppression and exploitation from external and internal forces. The amendments made in the Companies Act and Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act which now permitted political parties and candidates to take unlimited contributions from corporate and foreign institutions will be obliged government to protect the interest of these corporate and foreign institutions and the political and economic policies and regulations would be favouring them and the resultant losers are the citizens of India, thereby it is the failure of the India democracy.


The conclusion is drawn out from the above facts specifically denies the political parties to receive any grant from the foreign company and the corporate houses as such activity of the political parties are in a gross violation of the FCRA. Also for the Sovereign, Socialist, Democratic and Republic country like India, the internal interference of the foreign companies will be a setback to the constitutional ethos, therefore leading to the crony-capitalist era, where political parties after forming government will act as an agent of corporate houses for fulfilling their demands, the reason being that these companies funded political parties, therefore, political parties will be obliged to work for them.

It is also significant to witness the eagerness of the Modi Government and silence of the Congress to get exempted from the foreign funding, thereby turning down Delhi High Court Judgments through introducing new amendments to the Finance Bill, 2016 and the Finance Bill, 2018 which make their foreign donations post August 5, 1976, valid. Therefore the petition filed by the ADR and E.A.S. Sarma has blatantly opposed such move by the government while raising serious questions over government intentions.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

“Dismissal Without Inquiry Is Justified if Employee Did Not Prove Minimum Working Period”: Supreme Court

This case concerns the dispute relating to the termination of an employee without any disciplinary inquiry. Brief facts of the case The Respondent, Smt. Sureshwati was...

“Rape Victim To Be Provided Shelter Due To Media Attention Prohibited Under Section 228A of the IPC”: Supreme Court

This case concerns the petition by a rape victim for rehabilitation as she was social ostracization.  Brief facts of the case In this case, a writ...

Benefit of Probation Not Excluded by the Provisions of Mandatory Minimum Sentence Under Section 397 of Ipc

This case concerns the dispute regarding the granting of probation on good conduct to the accused under the age of twenty-one years.   Brief facts of...

Supreme Court Asks for the Centre’s Response on PIL Filed Seeking the Formation of a Media Tribunal

The Supreme Court sought responses from the Press Council of India (PCI), News Broadcasters Association (NBA) on a PIL which sought to set up a media tribunal to tackle issues concerning the media like complaints against media, channels, and networks. Media has become like an unruly horse that has to be tamed to express the plea.

Law Student Asked the Supreme Court To Take Suo Moto Cognizance of the Violent Farmer Protests

A law student of Mumbai University, Ashish Rai has asked the Supreme Court to take Suo Moto Cognizance of the insult to the national flag done by the farmer protests at the Red Fort. In the course of the farmer's tractor rally on Tuesday, some of the protesters unfurled their own flags by entering the premises of the Red Fort.

Farmers Meeting With the Supreme Court Committee Postponed To Jan 29 Due To the Traffic Restrictions

Due to the traffic restrictions after the violent protests broke out on Republic Day, the meeting of farmers with the Supreme Court Committee that was supposed to take place today was postponed to 29th January.

Supreme Court Stays Bombay HC Judgment which said Groping without Skin Contact Not Sexual Assault under POCSO

The National Commission for Women (NCW) has challenged the Bombay High Court judgment where it stated that groping a child’s breasts without any ‘skin-to-skin’ contact will not be considered as sexual assault as defined under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

Supreme Court Classifying Employees Based on Educational Qualifications for Promotion or Appointment Is Neither Violative of Article 14 nor of Article 16

This case concerns the dispute relating to the classification of employees belonging to the homogenous group based on educational qualifications. Brief facts of the case The...

Supreme Court Refuses To Transfer Petitions To Itself Related To ‘Love Jihad’ Filed in Allahabad High Court

On Monday, the Supreme Court refused to entertain the plea which was filed by the UP Government regarding the transfer of all the pleas challenging the ordinance the court passed, from Allahabad High Court to the Supreme Court.

Bombay HC Nagpur Bench Holds That Groping a Girl Without ‘Skin To Skin’ Contact Is Not Sexual Assault

The Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court acquitted a man charged under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) and convicted him of a minor offence under IPC stating that there was no direct physical contact.

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -