Court:
Delhi High Court
Bench:
Justice Rajiv Shakdher
Parties to Dispute:
Petitioner: Greenpeace India Society (an environmental NGO).
Respondent: Union of India (Ministry of Home Affairs, MHA).
Facts of the Case:
Greenpeace India Society is an Indian environmental non-profit organization registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The organization is known for advocating environmental sustainability, resisting coal and nuclear energy projects, and campaigning for climate justice, sustainable agriculture, and forest protection. It has received a significant portion of its funding from foreign donors under the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA), 2010.
In 2014, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) of the Government of India took adverse actions against Greenpeace India, stating the following:
- Alleged Misuse of Foreign Contributions:
MHA accused Greenpeace of using foreign funds to support protests and campaigns that allegedly hindered India’s economic development. The organization had actively campaigned against coal mining in regions like Mahan in Madhya Pradesh. MHA also claimed that these actions were against national interest. - Suspension of FCRA License:
Greenpeace India’s license under Section 13 of FCRA, 2010 was suspended without prior notice or hearing. The government claimed that emergency powers allowed such suspension in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India. - Freezing of Bank Accounts:
After suspending the license, the government froze all seven domestic and FCRA-linked bank accounts of Greenpeace. The NGO was unable to access funds for even day-to-day operations, salaries, and other ongoing campaigns. - Look-out Circulars (LOC) and Travel Restrictions:
In January 2014, Greenpeace campaigner Priya Pillai was offloaded from a flight to the UK, where she was scheduled to testify before a British Parliamentary Committee regarding a coal mining project in Madhya Pradesh. The MHA issued a Look-out Circular, which barred her from leaving India. This was widely viewed as retaliation for international advocacy.
Legal Issues of the Case:
- Whether the MHA’s suspension of Greenpeace India’s FCRA license without prior notice violated the principle of natural justice?
- Whether the suspension infringed on Greenpeace’s freedom of speech and association?
- Whether there was misuse of foreign contribution under FCRA?
Contention of the Parties:
The petitioner, Greenpeace India Society, challenged MHA’s actions on several constitutional and procedural grounds. It alleged that the suspension of its license under Section 13 of FCRA, 2010, without issuing prior notice or giving a chance to be heard amounted to a violation of the principle of natural justice.
Greenpeace argued that its activities, including environmental campaigns and public advocacy, were conducted in a peaceful and lawful manner and were aimed at promoting sustainable development and protecting the rights of marginalized communities.
Furthermore, Greenpeace asserted that the government’s actions infringed upon its fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and expression and the right to form associations. The NGO also claimed that freezing its bank accounts brought its operations to a halt, affecting staff salaries, ongoing projects, and organizational credibility.
The Union of India, through the Ministry of Home Affairs, defended its actions by invoking the sovereign rights of the state to regulate foreign funding under FCRA. It argued that Greenpeace had engaged in activities funded by foreign contributions that were against India’s national interest, particularly by opposing large-scale development projects in sectors like coal mining and nuclear energy.
The government submitted that the NGO’s campaigns had the potential to hinder economic growth and were therefore contrary to public interest and national policy. The MHA further stated that Section 13(1) of the FCRA authorized the suspension of an organization’s registration without prior notice if deemed necessary for reasons of public interest, sovereignty, or national security.
Ratio Decidendi:
The Delhi High Court in its ruling emphasized that even when statutory powers exist to suspend rights or license, exercise of such powers must comply with the minimum standards of fairness and natural justice. Justice Rajiv Shakdher held that the suspension of Greenpeace’s FCRA registration and freezing of its bank’s accounts without any show-cause notice or opportunity for explanation was both arbitrary and procedurally flawed.
The Court observed that while the receipt of foreign contributions is not a fundamental right, the manner in which the government acted had the effect of violating Greenpeace’s fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(c). The Court reiterated that peaceful advocacy and criticism of government policies, even if they relate to economic or developmental matters, fall within the ambit of the constitutionally protected free speech and cannot be branded as anti-national.
A key element of the Court’s reasoning was the doctrine of proportionality. It was held that the government must adopt the least restrictive means when taking actions against entities, especially when fundamental rights are at stake. In this case, freezing all accounts and suspending the license without giving Greenpeace a chance to respond was seen as a disproportionate measure. Additionally, the Court rejected the state’s broad invocation of “national interest” as an automatic justification for denying due process.
Judgement:
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Greenpeace India Society. Justice Shakdher held that the actions of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) in suspending the NGO’s FCRA registration and freezing its bank accounts violated the principles of natural justice. The Court found no credible evidence that Greenpeace’s activities posed an immediate or irreparable threat to public interest or national security that would have warranted such drastic actions without notice.
The Judgement strongly affirmed that dissent and criticism of state policies, particularly by civil society organizations, are essential components of a functioning democracy and cannot be curtailed under the guise of public interest unless there is a clear and present danger backed by evidence.
Final Order of the Court:
In conclusion, the Court granted partial relief to Greenpeace India. It ordered the de-freezing of the organization’s domestic bank accounts, enabling it to pay salaries and meet essential expenses. While the foreign contribution accounts were not immediately unfrozen, the Court directed MHA to consider allowing access to such accounts on a case-by-case basis, under appropriate safeguards.
Moreover, the Court directed the Union of India to issue a show-cause notice to Greenpeace India and allow it an opportunity to respond before taking any further actions. This ensured that any subsequent decisions would be taken following due process of law and would be legally defensible.
Conclusion:
The Greenpeace India Judgement stands as a milestone in safeguarding the space for non-governmental organizations in India. It reinforces the principle that the executive discretion must be subject to procedural fairness and that civil society’s role in promoting transparency and accountability cannot be stifled under the pretext of public interest. The case continues to be cited in discussions on FCRA reforms, free speech, and the regulations of NGOs in India.
Relevant Provisions:
- Article 19(1)(a) – Freedom of Speech and Expression
- Article 19(1)(c) – Right to Form Associations
- FCRA, 2010 – Sections 11, 13, 14
- Principle of Natural Justice (Audi Alteram Partem)
