Skip to main content

Foreign funding law 'misused' to target civil society: Amnesty, Human Rights Watch

A civil society protest to save the jungles
Counterview Desk
Two top rights groups with presence in several countries, including India, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, have said that the “criminal case” against the Lawyers Collective, a Delhi-based high profile NGO with some of the most well-known Supreme Court advocates as its office bearers, is the latest example of how the foreign funding law is being used by the Indian authorities to “harass outspoken rights groups”. 
In a joint statement, they said, the Government of India “appears to be disregarding court rulings upholding the rights of civil society groups to freedom of expression and association”, adding, at the same time, the government has “failed” to provide substantive replies to questions from the National Human Rights Commission regarding “misuse of the foreign funding law against nongovernmental groups”.

The statement:

On June 18, 2019, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) filed a criminal case against the Lawyers Collective for allegedly violating the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA). The group provides legal aid, advocates for the rights of marginalized groups, campaigns to end discrimination against LGBTQ people, and seeks enforcement of workplace sexual harassment laws.
“The Indian authorities are evidently targeting the Lawyers Collective because of their work defending human rights activists and advocating for the rights of marginalized groups,” said Aakar Patel, head of Amnesty International India. “The repeated misuse of the foreign funding law restricts groups’ ability to operate in violation of their rights to freedom of expression and association.”
The CBI has accused the Lawyers Collective of criminal conspiracy, criminal breach of trust, and cheating under the Indian Penal Code, false statement made in declaration, and various sections under the FCRA and Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. These allegations are based on a 2016 Home Affairs Ministry inspection report that alleged financial irregularities against the organization and its co-founders, the prominent lawyers Anand Grover and Indira Jaising.
It claimed that the organization used the funds for activities that violated the foreign funding law, notably “lobbying with members of parliament and thereby influencing the political process and parliamentary institutions.”
While governments may limit certain political activities of nongovernmental organizations in exchange for tax benefits, the broad restrictions on groups that obtain foreign funding violates basic free expression and association rights, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International India said.
The Home Ministry allegation against the Lawyers Collective is inconsistent given that the Indian government, led by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), amended the FCRA first in 2016 and then in 2018 to retroactively legalize foreign funding made to political parties. The foreign funding law had been enacted largely to prohibit political parties and politicians from accepting foreign support to prevent foreign interests from influencing Indian elections.
But in 2014, the Delhi High Court had found that the BJP and the Congress Party had received foreign funding in violation of the foreign funding law. The law was then amended to prevent any retroactive action from being taken against the political parties.
The government first suspended Lawyers Collective’s FCRA license in May 2016 and later cancelled it in November 2016, also freezing bank accounts. The Lawyers Collective has challenged the cancellation and non-renewal of the license in Bombay High Court. While the case is pending, in January 2017, the court ordered the authorities to release its domestic bank accounts.
The allegations and charges against the Lawyers Collective appear to be an attempt to silence the group because of its work representing people in cases against the government, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International India said. The Lawyers Collective has represented activists facing a range of politically motivated allegations including those that sought prosecutions for the 2002 targeted attacks on Muslims in Gujarat, or others that have defended the rights of tribal groups and Dalits.
Civil society groups, activists, doctors, and patient rights’ advocates have condemned the government’s actions against the Lawyers Collective. The National Human Rights Commissionalso sought a status report from the CBI on its investigation against the group.
Since 2014, several organizations have been targeted under the foreign funding law, including Greenpeace India, Centre for Promotion of Social Concerns, Sabrang Trust, Navsarjan Trust, Act Now for Harmony and Democracy, NGO Hazards Centre, and Indian Social Action Forum.
The authorities’ use of the foreign funding law against the Centre for Promotion of Social Concerns, a prominent Indian human rights organization better known for its program unit, People’s Watch, also highlights the law’s use for reprisal.
When the group challenged the government’s decision not to renew its FCRA in the Delhi High Court in 2016, the Home Affairs Ministry told the court that the group used foreign funding to share information with United Nations special rapporteurs and foreign embassies, “portraying India’s human rights record in negative light…to the detriment of India’s image.”
The government characterized this as “undesirable activities detrimental to national interest,” effectively trying to target the group for promoting international human rights standards.
The government appears to be disregarding court rulings upholding the rights of civil society groups to freedom of expression and association, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International India said. The courts have repeatedly reminded the government that in a democracy, peaceful dissent is protected and may not be muzzled.
The government has also failed to provide substantive replies to questions from the National Human Rights Commission regarding alleged misuse of the foreign funding law against nongovernmental groups, and to explain why these restrictions do not violate international law and standards. For instance, in November 2016, the commission questioned the government’s decision not to renew the FCRA license for Centre for Promotion of Social Concerns.
The government submitted a response in December 2016, but the commission said that its reply “was vague to say the least.” Despite the commission’s repeated calls, the government provided no updated response.
The foreign funding law’s vague provisions and its misuse have also received international condemnation. In April 2016, the UN special rapporteur on freedom of peaceful assembly and association published a legal analysis asserting that the FCRA was not in conformity with international law, principles and standards. 
In June 2016, the UN special rapporteurs on the situation of human rights defenders, on freedom of opinion and expression, and on freedom of peaceful assembly and association, called on the Indian government to repeal the FCRA, which they said was “being used more and more to silence organisations involved in advocating civil, political, economic, social, environmental or cultural priorities, which may differ from those backed by the Government.”
While it is appropriate to regulate and scrutinize the financial affairs of not-for-profit organizations and nongovernmental organizations to address corruption and legitimate national security concerns, the FCRA is too broad and unnecessarily infringes on the activities of organizations that address social issues in India. 
The Indian government should repeal the law, or amend it so that it does not interfere with the rights to freedom of expression and association, and cannot be misused for political reasons to restrict the peaceful activities of nongovernmental organizations, Amnesty International India and Human Rights Watch said.
“The Indian government talks about inclusive development and commitment to basic rights and yet is targeting lawyers and activists who seek to protect the rights of the most vulnerable,” said Meenakshi Ganguly, South Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “Democratic governments should not fear criticism, and should certainly not target activists for their ideology or commitment to upholding civil liberties.”

Comments

TRENDING

Gujarat refusal to observe Maulana Azad's birthday as Education Day 'discriminatory'

By Our Representative
The Gujarat government decision not to celebrate the National Education Day on !monday has gone controversial. Civil society organizations have particularly wondered whether the state government is shying away from the occasion, especially against the backdrop of "deteriorating" level of education in Gujarat.

Rushdie, Pamuk, 260 writers tell Modi: Aatish episode casts chill on public discourse

Counterview Desk
As many as 260 writers, journalists, artists, academics and activists across the world, including Salman Rushdie, British Indian novelist, Orhan Pamuk, Turkish novelist and recipient of the 2006 Nobel Prize in literature, and Margaret Atwood, Canadian poet and novelist, have called upon Prime Minister Narendra Modi to review the decision to strip British Indian writer Aatish Taseer of his overseas Indian citizenship.

Violent 'Ajodhya' campaign in 1840s after British captured Kabul, destroyed Jama Masjid

Counterview Desk  Irfan Ahmad, professor at the Max Planck Institute for the Study of Religious and Ethnic Diversity, Göttingen, Germany, and author of “Islamism and Democracy in India” (Princeton University Press, 2009), short-listed for the 2011 International Convention of Asian Scholars Book Prize for the best study in Social Sciences, in his "initial thoughts" on the Supreme Court judgment on the Babri-Jam Janmaboomi dispute has said, while order was “lawful”, it was also “awful.”

Visually challenged lady seeks appointment with Gujarat CM, is 'unofficially' detained

By Pankti Jog*
It was a usual noon of November 10. I got a phone call on our Right to Information (RTI) helpline No 9924085000 from Ranjanben of Khambhat, narrating her “disgraceful” experience after she had requested for an appointment with Gujarat chief minister Vijay Rupani. She wanted to meet Rupani, on tour of the Khambhat area in Central Gujarat as part of his Janvikas Jumbesh (Campaign for Development).

There may have been Buddhist stupa at Babri site during Gupta period: Archeologist

By Rajiv Shah
A top-notch archeologist, Prof Supriya Varma, who served as an observer during the excavation of the Babri Masjid site in early 2000s along with another archeologist, Jaya Menon, has controversially stated that not only was there "no temple under the Babri Masjid”, if one goes “beyond” the 12th century to 4th to 6th century, i.e. the Gupta period, “there seems to be a Buddhist stupa.”

VHP doesn't represent all Hindus, Sunni Waqf Board all Muslims: NAPM on SC ruling

Counterview Desk
India's top civil rights network, National Alliance of People’s Movements (NAPM), even as describing the Supreme Court's Ayodhya judgement unjust, has said, it is an "assault on the secular fabric of the Constitution". In a statement signed by top social workers and activists, NAPM said, "The judgement conveys an impression to Muslims that, despite being equal citizens of the country, their rights are not equal before the law."

Church in India 'seems to have lost' moral compass of unequivocal support to the poor

By Fr Cedric Prakash SJ*
In 2017, Pope Francis dedicated a special day, to be observed by the Universal Church, every year, as the ‘World Day of the Poor’. This year it will be observed on November 17 on the theme ‘The hope of the poor shall not perish for ever’; in a message for the day Pope Francis says: