Indira Jaising; Photo Credit: NDTV
The Union home ministry’s order directing the Lawyers Collective to show cause why its FCRA registration should not be cancelled and suspension of its registration for a period of six months with immediate effect has been condemned by the LC as a move to “suppress the voice of dissent”. LC which headed by noted lawyer and former additional solicitor general of India, Indira Jaising and her senior lawyer, husband Anand Grover is well-known for its legal interventions concerning human rights.
Curiously, while LC is yet to receive a formal communication from the home ministry, copies of the Order were made available to the media yesterday and the same is now posted on the official website of the FCRA department.
According to the notice, LC has violated several provisions of the Foreign Contributions (Regulation) Act, 2010 and Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Rules 2011. An FCRA team had inspected the accounts and related records of LC at its office from January 19-23, 2016 following which it had sought LC’s responses/ comments of LC to the alleged findings regarding FCRA violations.
LC responded to the findings in March end challenging each of the alleged FCRA violations.
However, the home ministry’s order dated June 1 states that after “detailed examination” of all the records made available to the ministry, “it was found that the same was not satisfactory; that the same did not provide adequate explanation vis-à-vis the violations found and pointed out, and therefore it has been decided to reject the same and proceed in accordance with law”.
The statement issued by the Lawyers Collective has condemned the "blatant attempt of the government of India to victimise the organisation and its office bearers Indira Jaising and Anand Grover. This is nothing but a gross misuse of the FCRA Act which is being used to suppress any form of dissent”.
The statement further stated: “It is far too well known that both Anand Grover and Indira Jaising have represented several persons in their professional capacity as lawyers in several cases against the government and the functionaries including the president of the BJP party, Amit Shah protesting his discharge in the Sohrabuddin murder case.”
A major alleged violation according to the home ministry is that Jaising received payments from the foreign contributions received during her tenure as additional solicitor general. Challenging this, the statement added: “The allegation against Jaising was based on the footing that she was a government servant, who was prohibited from receiving FC under the FCRA. However, she was a public servant and not a government servant, on whom there was no bar to receive FC.”
Human rights defenders view the home ministry’s latest move against LC as part of the present government’s tactic of using FCRA Act as a weapon against NGOs who refuse to toe the government’s line. In the past one year, the ministry has initiated similar vindictive action against Green Peace and three organisations – Citizens for Justice and Peace, Sabrang Trust, Sabrang Communications and Publishing Pvt. Ltd. – with which the co-editors of Sabrang India are associated.
Among other things, LC had provided legal service to Priya Pillai of Green Peace and spoken out against the attempt to victimise and silence Teesta Setalvad and Javed Anand.
The lawyers collective condemns the blatant attempt of the government of India to victimize the organization and its office bearers India Jaisng and Anand Grover .This is noting but a gross misuse of the FCRA Act which is being used to suppress any form of dissent . it is far too well know that both Anand Grover and Indira Jaising have represented several persons in their professional capacity as lawyers is several cases against the government and the functionaries including the President of the BJP party , Amit Shah protesting his discharge in the Sorabudin murder case . The lawyers collective intends to challenge the order as unconstitutional and required to be set aside .
The order/show cause notice is a malafide act and an act of vindictiveness on the part of the Government. This is being done because of the cases that Lawyers Collective (‘LC’) and its Trustees, Ms. Indira Jaising and Mr. Anand Grover, are involved in, including but are not limited to Sanjiv Bhatt, Yakub Memon and Priya Pillai. The aim is to destroy the credibility of LC by leaking it to the media, before even serving it on LC. LC till today has not received the order purportedly issued on 31st May, 2016, though it is available to the press. Specifically on the order, LC submits as follows:
At the outset, LC states that all the foreign contribution (‘FC’) received were spent for the purposes received and accounted for.
The allegation against Ms. Jaising was based on the footing that she was a government servant, who was prohibited from receiving FC under the FCRA. However, she was a public servant and not a government servant, on whom there was no bar to receive FC. In any event, FC was received only by LC and Ms. Jaising was only paid remuneration for her services rendered to LC, on whom there is no prohibition. This aspect has not even been looked at by the authorities.
So far as Mr. Anand Grover is concerned, it was the mandate of LC to work on the issue of Fundamental Rights, including the right to health. The work of United Nations Special Rapporteur on Right to Health was part of LC’s work. No money was received by Anand Grover as foreign contribution. He was only reimbursed expenses incurred by him, while abroad, for doing LC’s work, including telephone and internet expenses.
The Novartis case is part of LC’s mandate to work on access to medicines. Expenses were only incurred for that, including for Ms. Jaising for her advice on the case.
Expenses for workshops/seminars/conferences are part of the mandate of LC and money is spent only for that purpose. This allegation is made for the first time now and not in the observation report dated 29.02.2016.
The FC received from abroad can be spent abroad. There is no restriction in FCRA at all.
LC entered into legitimate contracts with foreigners to provide services in India and abroad. And expenses were incurred for that reason. There is no violation of FCRA at all.
The receipt of FC in FC-utilisation account and, opening of certain bank accounts, transfer of FC from FC-utilization to another utilisation account and from local accounts to FC-utilisation has been explained in detail in the Association reply dated to the Inspection Report but not considered.
No money was spent on rallies or dharnas having any political hue or colour. FCRA, 2010 was not applicable for expenses incurred in 2009, while in 2011 and 2014, it was spent from domestic/United Nations funding, which is exempt from FCRA.