The problem with this new bill is that it attempts to change the complete character and nature of this act itself. Once it starts as a regulatory act, it has now become an acquisition act to acquire the assets of all these organizations free of cost by somehow denying or defeating the very nature of charity. the charitable assets are now sought to be you know taken over sold and appropriated towards the government revenue so that is why you know we are opposing this entire bill hi I'm Karan Thapar over the last few years I hope you've been watching my program the interview on the wire during that period I've interviewed doctors politicians businessmen scientists authors and even the occasional Nobel laureate. For me, it's been exciting. I hope it's been enjoyable for you. But these, as you know, are tough times, and if this program is going to remain bold, independent, and sometimes even defiant, then I think we need your support. At the end of the day, it's a truism, but editorial independence is best defended by the viewers. So if you would like this program to remain the way it is, forthright, outspoken, and interesting, then would you consider supporting us? All you have to do is to click on the description at the bottom. But more than anything else, I hope you will continue to watch the interview. Your viewership means an awful lot to me. Hello and welcome to a special interview for The Wire. There's growing apprehension that the government could bring the Foreign Contribution Regulation Amendment Bill to Parliament in the last few days of the monsoon session. Its silence on this matter is not reassuring. Meanwhile, the opposition and the Christian community in particular strongly oppose the bill. They've called it undemocratic, unconstitutional, dangerous and deeply alarming. So today we examine the bill and its impact on Christian institutions in India. Are its opponents right in demanding the bill is withdrawn in its entirety or referred to a joint committee of parliament? My guest is DMK Rajasabha MP and Chairman of the Joint Action Forum on Minorities, Mr Wilson, it's feared that the government could table the Foreign Contribution Regulation Amendment Bill in Parliament in this session The government says it increases transparency and protects national security You on the other hand have gone on record to say it draconian and violates the constitution So can you start by explaining why you so strongly disagree with the government? Yes, first of all, I thank you very much for inviting me. It's really happy to be with you. First of all, see our apprehension about this bill, we term it as a very draconian nature because the bill attempts to take over the assets of the charitable organizations as well as it attempts to take over the activities of the organizations even without hearing and even without notice being given. So, that is our apprehension. There is no doubt that every government has got a power, a regulatory power to regulate these types of donation being received in the soil. But the problem with this new bill is that it attempts to change the complete character and nature of this act itself. Once it starts as a regulatory act, it has now become an acquisition act to acquire the assets of all these organizations free of cost by somehow denying or defeating the very nature of charity. The charitable assets are now sought to be, you know, taken over, sold and appropriated towards the government revenue. So that is why we are opposing this entire bill. Not only that, even section 15 of the FCR Act 2010, that also we are opposing. Let's, in the light of what you said, come to the details of the bill. To begin with, the amendment bill creates a designated authority with powers to take permanent control of the foreign contributions and assets of any organization whose foreign contribution registration is cancelled, surrendered or lapses. This means that if the government denies renewal or simply fails to act on a renewal application in time, the assets of the concerned organization will be taken over by this authority. Am I correct in that interpretation? Yes, you are correct. there are provisions that if the license is cancelled or it has not been renewed or it has refused to be renewed, then the property automatically vests with the designated authority. That is the tenor of the new bill. And the truth is, the government has the power either to cancel a license or not to renew it whenever it wants, which means also that the government can take over the assets of any organization whenever it wants Precisely that is our contention A bureaucrat it left to the discretion of a bureaucrat If what will happen see it says if you don't renewal a certificate within time, on time, for example, I make an application and the bureaucrat wantonly or malifiably sits over that application, so the registration is not renewed within on time, then according to the new provisions, once it is not renewed within that time, then the other provisions kicks in, automatically the property vests with the designated authority. That is a tenor of this bill, which we call it as a draconian nature. Now secondly, once the assets are vested in the designated authority, the authority can transfer them to any ministry department or agency of the central state or local governments, it can dispose of them through sale with the proceeds credited to the consolidated fund of india again am i right the designated authority can do what it wants with those assets correct now uh you know one thing you have to see uh between the cancellation of the certificate or refusal to renew the certificate or you know not giving the certificate on time this will entail for a vesting of the property automatic but in between there will be no hearing there will be no hearing at all no notice will be given to you about the property being vested and that is how you know the suppose uh today the cancellation is being done immediately after the cancellation this provision kicks in and that day itself the property west with the authority so that uh uh power you know the is given uh under this uh uh bill uh to the designated authority and as you point out this can happen without hearing and without notice correct that's that that's one of the uh problem in this bill so to sum up if this amendment passes the government will have both the power to deny renewal or cancel foreign contribution licenses and then subsequently assume control of the funds properties and assets of the organization concerned this is effectively the power to take over other people's property and do with it whatever the government wants exactly the intention is appears to be not really to regulate the foreign contribution that to be sought to be received the intention is to liquidate the assets which is already established in India over a period of time So I can see though I can attribute malefights against legislature or against government but holistic reading of all the clauses would clearly say this bill is not intended to really to regulate the contributions that are coming in into India or that have already come into India But the entire intention is to see that they liquidate the assets and expropriate it towards the government resources, towards the government account. So that is what I can see. And this is where the Indian bill differs markedly and significantly from similar bills such as those in America. In America, there is certainly laws that require regulation of foreign contributions. But in India, the measure goes one step further. A, permission is necessary to acquire the foreign contribution. And secondly, after it's been acquired, if the license is not renewed, the property, the assets, the funds can be acquired by the government and disposed of as the government wants. That's where our regulation differs markedly from the American one. Correct. Now, for any legislation, we should stand the test of passing a judicial scrutiny. Then it should have a fairness, equitableness, a fair compensation. There is one provision, if you would allow me to read that, I can refer to Article 31. So, this article where you wanted to acquire the properties of a minority, particularly the educational institution, then you have to necessarily pay a compensation that is not provided in this bill. So, therefore, Article 31A, it reads that in making any law providing for the compulsory acquisition of any property of an educational institution established and administered by a minority referred to in Clause 1, the state shall ensure that the amount fixed by or determined under such law for the acquisition of such property is such as would not restrict or abrogate the rights guaranteed under that clause so therefore now you can't have uh you know clause that uh completely dispenses with the payment of compensation one is there is no hearing and this is why you believe that this amendment bill violates the Constitution. It violates Article 31. Exactly, Article 31, capital 1A. Apart from that, Article 300A, I was reading Article 30, subclass 1, capital A. Then it violates Article 300A. It violates Article 19-1. I will say how it violates Article 19-1. Now, the designated authority, not only the property is going to vest with the designated authority, but all the activities,
