- The Big Picture: What’s AAP
- A year later, the tweak: Desh to Dilli
- Bus from Burari laden with volunteers and hope
- Rare day out for AAP families
- Riot of support for AAP in communal hot spots
- Hunt on for CM house, will not accept Z-plus security
- No word from high command, Delhi Congress in a paralysis
- Latest News
- Second time at Ramlila Maidan: Hope overrides their doubts
- Kejriwal has no portfolio, will keep an eye on others
- In sea of white caps, BJP troika plans to be ‘forceful opposition’
- MP, MLA see Punjab as the next AAP stop
- A year later, the tweak: Desh to Dilli
- Arvind Kejriwal repeats his advice to sting the corrupt, asks police to act against ‘goondagardi’
- Proud that one of our volunteers has become Delhi CM: Anna Hazare
- Arvind Kejriwal not to keep any portfolio
- Now an Aam Aadmi Party Cola by beverage-maker inspired by Arvind Kejriwal’s party
- New chief minister Arvind Kejriwal holds meetings at Delhi Secretariat
- Cong’s Ajay Maken blames Sheila Dikshit for Delhi polls debacle
- Left, right, AAP
HC says Congress, BJP violated FCRA and RP Act norms
The Delhi High court on Friday held that the Congress and the BJP had “prima facie” violated the provisions of the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act and directed the Central government and the Election Commission to probe into their funding receipts within 6 months.
“we have no hesitation in arriving at the view that prima-facie the acts of the respondents inter-se, as highlighted in the present petition, clearly fall foul of the ban imposed under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976 as the donations accepted by the political parties from Sterlite and Sesa accrue from ‘Foreign Sources’ within the meaning of law,” held the court of Justice Pradeep nandrajog and Justice Jayant Nath.
The judgment was given on a PIL filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) last year, seeking action against the two parties for allegedly violating foreign funding norms and illegally recieving contributions from Government owned companies.
The ADR had made allegations with regard to donations received by the two political parties in 2009 from companies such as Vedanta PLC, Sesa Goa, Malco etc. Vedanta PLC is a company incorporated in London, with 50% of its issues shares owned by an NRI Indian Citizen. Sterlite and SEsa Goa are incorporated in India, but more than 50% of shares in Sterlite and Sesa Goa are owned by Vedanta.
the ADR had said that the two National parties had indulged in “a blatant violation” of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976 and Representation of People Act, 1951 by taking donations from foreign sources and from government owned companies. The FCRA prohibits acceptance of foreign contribution by political parties in India, while the RP Act prohibits donations to political parties by government owned companies.
The government in its response to the plea had argued that since an Indian citizen owned Vedanta, the donations from the company and its subsidiaries would not be counted under “foreign donations.” With regard to the allegation that the Congress had recieved donation from the State Trading Corporation and Metals & Minerals Trading Corporation of India, the Party had claimed that the donation had been for a function organised by the National Students Union of India(NSUI) and had been “incorrectly shown” in the accounts of the Indian National Congress.
The High court bench has however held that Vedanta and its subsidiaris would be considered “foreign companies” under the FCRA since Vedanta is a company incorporated outside India. The court also held that under Section 2(e)(vi) of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976, if more than one-half of the nominal value of the share capital of a donor company is held by “corporations incorporated in a foreign country or territory,” it would be considered a “foreign contribution”.
The court also pulled up the government, observing that “the response by the Union of India” and the two political parties was “found to be based on a wrong understanding of the law.”
The court also referred to the serious issues raised during Parliamentary debates on the FCRA in 1976, observing that the members of parliament had expressed “Deep …continued »