Supreme Court Upholds Foreign Contribution Act Amendments, Enhancing Transparency and Accountability

The Supreme Court upheld the amendments to the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 introduced through the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Act, 2020. The Court found the amendments to be constitutional, necessary to address misuse of foreign contributions, and to enhance transparency and accountability. Specific provisions such as the prohibition on transfer of foreign contributions, requirement to open an FCRA account in a specified SBI branch, and mandating Aadhaar details or passport for identification of office bearers were also upheld as reasonable restrictions in line with the legislative intent to regulate foreign contributions effectively.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional validity of amendments to the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 (FCRA) via the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Act, 2020.
2. Validity of Section 7 prohibiting transfer of foreign contribution to other persons.
3. Validity of Section 12(1A) and Section 17(1) regarding the requirement to open an FCRA account in a specified branch of the State Bank of India (SBI).
4. Validity of Section 12A mandating Aadhaar details or passport for identification of office bearers.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitutional Validity of Amendments to FCRA via the 2020 Act:
The amendments to the FCRA were challenged on grounds of being arbitrary, unreasonable, and impinging upon fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. The amendments were introduced to address the misuse of foreign contributions and ensure transparency and accountability. The Supreme Court upheld the amendments, stating that they were necessary to strengthen the regulatory framework and were not in violation of the Constitution.

2. Validity of Section 7 Prohibiting Transfer of Foreign Contribution to Other Persons:
The amended Section 7 prohibits the transfer of foreign contributions to any other person. The petitioners argued that this provision was arbitrary and overbroad, affecting collaborations between organizations. The Court held that the prohibition on transfer was necessary to prevent misuse and ensure that foreign contributions are utilized for the purposes for which they were received. The Court found that the prohibition was a reasonable restriction and did not violate Articles 14, 19, or 21 of the Constitution.

3. Validity of Section 12(1A) and Section 17(1) Regarding FCRA Account in SBI:
The amendments require organizations to open an FCRA account in a specified branch of the SBI in New Delhi. The petitioners contended that this requirement was irrational and imposed unnecessary burdens. The Court upheld the amendments, stating that the requirement was necessary for effective monitoring and transparency of foreign contributions. The Court noted that the provision allowed for the opening of multiple accounts in other scheduled banks for utilization purposes, thus balancing the regulatory needs with operational convenience.

4. Validity of Section 12A Mandating Aadhaar Details or Passport for Identification:
Section 12A requires office bearers of organizations to provide Aadhaar details or a passport for identification. The petitioners argued that this provision was intrusive and violated privacy rights. The Court upheld the provision, emphasizing the need for proper identification to ensure accountability. However, the Court read down the provision to allow Indian nationals to use their passports as identification, ensuring compliance with the mandate while addressing privacy concerns.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court declared that the amended provisions of the FCRA via the 2020 Act, namely Sections 7, 12(1A), 12A, and 17, are intra vires the Constitution. The Court emphasized the necessity of these amendments to ensure transparency, accountability, and proper utilization of foreign contributions, thereby upholding the legislative intent behind the amendments.

---