The Ministry of Home Affairs yesterday cancelled the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) registration of Sabrang Trust, an NGO run by social activists, Teesta Setalvad and Javed Anand.
The Supreme Court has been extending from time to time protection to Setalvad and Anand from arrest and custodial interrogation, sought by the CBI, on the ground that it was not required if the accused submitted all the required documents, in connection with allegations of financial irregularities to the investigators.
The cancellation of the FCRA registration of the Sabrang Trust, therefore, has been argued by some to have been the result of the Government’s frustration with the continued protection from arrest of the couple by the Supreme Court.
The NGO released a statement that: "Sabrang Trust will actively explore all legal options to challenge the Home Ministry’s order cancelling its FCRA registration."
Today’s order of the Union Home Ministry cancelling the FCRA registration of Sabrang Trust brings no surprise to its Trustees.
In their earlier communications with the Home Ministry, the Trustees had responded to the alleged FCRA violations point-by-point, para-by-para, pointing out how the allegations showed a complete non-application of mind.
That the cancellation order was imminent was apparent from the mere show of a personal hearing granted to Sabrang Trust on 11 April, 2016. The hearing was over in less than 10 minutes.
The Trustees regret to note that today’s order of the Home Ministry is simply a mechanical reiteration of the very same allegations made earlier, in total disregard to the detailed and reasoned explanations and arguments put forward by the Trust.
Setalvad and Anand are the directors, co-editors, printers and publisher in Sabrang Communications & Publishing Private Limited (SCPPL), which brings out the magazine, Communalism Combat. They also run the NGO, “Citizens for Peace and Justice”, which fights communalism through the courts.
Points & Counterpoints
The Government’s allegations and the Trust’s responses to them are summarised below.
Allegation 1: The Government alleges that the Sabrang Trust spent Rs 50 lakh for SCPPL, violating the mandate of FCRA SCPPL is an unregistered entity, and FCRA prohibits utilisation of foreign contribution for activities like media and publications.
Defence: The so-called transfer of Rs 50 lakh (between 2006-07 and 2013-14) by Sabrang Trust to SCPPL was “payment” by Sabrang Trust to SCPPL towards its agreed monthly share of shared actual expenses incurred on office/furniture and fixtures/office equipments/staff.
None of this amount was paid to Teesta Setalvad or Javed Anand, and no rent has ever been charged to any trust or entity for use of office space from Teesta Setalvad’s parents, as alleged.
There is no bar on the association with FCRA registration from a cost-saving, expenses-sharing arrangement with other associations, whether registered under FCRA or not. Monthly payments by Sabrang Trust to SCPPL are not unreasonable.
Setalvad and Anand have contended that it is Sabrang Trust, the association which has been granted registration under FCRA, which is prohibited from publishing or acting as correspondent, columnist, editor etc. There is no restriction on any of its board members or office bearers being publishers, editors, printers etc., of a registered newspaper run by some other independent legal entity, they say.
Allegation 2: The Government has claimed that the NGO did not obtain prior permission from the Government, as required, before utilising foreign contribution for administrative expenditure, exceeding 50 per cent of the total foreign donations.
Defence^: The Sabrang Trust, in its detailed responses, had claimed that there were no FCRA violations and that the order of the FCRA department dated 9 September, 2015 to suspend the FCRA registration for six months, had been arrived at in an arbitrary manner without application of mind.
The Trust has contended that its administrative expenses for 2010-11 and 2011-12, the check period, were well below the permissible 50 per cent limit.
The MHA/FCRA has collapsed project-related expenses incurred in furtherance of the objectives of the Trust with administrative expenses, Setalvad and Anand claim.
The FCRA Act, 2010 clearly state that expenses directly related to project execution are not to be included in administrative expenses, they point out.