Right to protest not ‘undesirable’: Kerala High Court cancels order denying FCRA renewal

The ruling further noted that even if it was assumed that some financial support was provided to the protestors, every citizen had the right to protest peacefully and that “expression of public opinion, ideas and objections, peaceful modes of objecting to or criticising Government policies are all facets of the freedom of speech and expression,” and “when the right to protest is constitutionally guaranteed, exercise of such right cannot be labelled as ‘an undesirable purpose’ or against public interest.”

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas was of the view that unless the order was passed specifying any reason, it could not be said to be an order itself.

Before the court, the Kerala Social Service Forum, claiming to be a charitable organisation, said it was promoting social action initiatives of the Catholic Diocesan Social Service Societies the state of Kerala. The organisation was stated to have registered itself for the first time under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA) on April 25, 1985, and thereafter, the registration has been renewed regularly without any interruption.

According to its plea, it had applied for the FCRA renewal on May 7, 2025, and based on a “secret report” of a central security agency, its renewal application was rejected by the authorities without giving it an opportunity to say its side. The charity further claimed that the renewal application was rejected merely by referring to the law, on the grounds that the funds were being used for undesirable purposes and that acceptance of the foreign contribution would affect public interest.

It came on record that the order of refusal was challenged by the charity, but the plea was dismissed after referring to the report and accusing the charity of financially supporting certain “agitators” protesting against the setting up of Vizhinjam Port.

‘Protest constitutionally guaranteed’

The ruling noted that, “reasons being the soul of every order, however short it be, it is essential for the authority to specify the reason for denial of even a renewal application,” and the court further stated that refusing to divulge reasons was “in effect” a mode of denying justice.  The high court also noticed that as per the report, the local fishermen community was protesting against the Vizhinjam Port Project. The high court pointed out that “it fails all comprehension, as to how those agitations, which to a large extent are common whenever a new project is announced, can amount to an issue relating to national security.”

The high court court observed that the report did not mention the charity being involved in any protest and that no trail of money was traced from the charity to any of the protestors. The court was of the perspective that “it is a travesty of justice that despite not being part of any of the agitations, petitioner’s application for renewal of FCRA certificate has been rejected.”

The court therefore held that even if it was assumed that some financial support was provided to the protestors, that could not be treated as use of foreign contribution for an “undesirable” purpose or “against” public interest. Accordingly, the high court set aside those orders that refused to renew the certificate of registration of the charity and directed the authorities to pass fresh orders within three months from the day they received the judgment.

‘Baseless allegation’

Advocates Karthika Maria, Anjaly Elias and Ambika Sankar appearing for the organisation contended that the renewal application submitted was refused without any reason and the allegation that the organisation was providing financial assistance to the agitators protesting against Vizhinjam Port was baseless. The counsel further contended that the charity distributed the funds to its beneficiaries according to the law and that for more than three decades, it had been receiving funds and not a single violation was ever noticed.

Deputy Solicitor General of India OM Shalina submitted that the scope of the FCRA had undergone a drastic change and that the reasons for refusing renewal were not required to be divulged. The counsel contended that when the foreign contribution was used or when there was a possibility of diversion of funds for undesirable purposes, the authorities were allowed to refuse renewal and that the court must not interfere with its decision.