The ruling BJP on Friday approached the Supreme Court against a Delhi High Court verdict that faulted the national party for receiving crores as funds into the party coffers without disclosing details under the Foreign Contributions Regulatory rules.
A Bench headed by Chief Justice Hl Dattu issued notice to the Centre and Election Commission and posted the matter along with a similar appeal pending in court filed by the Indian National Congress, which too was affected by the HC decision.
Although there is no stay against prosecution, the parties were given liberty to approach the court as and when any coercive action was taken by Ministry of Home Affairs or the EC.
In its appeal, the BJP argued that the High Court verdict of March 28, 2014 proceeded on the assumption that donations received from Sterlite and Sesa Goa would fall under the definition of “foreign source”, thus attracting prosecution for non-disclosure under Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 (FCRA). The HC based its conclusion on the fact that the london-based Vedanta Resources owned majority stakes in these companies.
But the party argued that Vedanta was owned by an Indian national Anil Agarwal, who is based in london and this question still remains to be examined whether the contribution made by an Indian citizen living abroad and who owns majority stake in a foreign company will be classified as a contribution from a “foreign source”.
The BJP in its petition said that even though Vedanta Resources is a foreign company under Section 591 of Companies Act, the person contributing the funds was an Indian citizen and the company’s subsidiaries Sterlite and Sesa Goa are incorporated here.
The HC verdict came on a PIl by NGO, Association for Democratic Reforms and EAS Sarma, a former secretary of the Government of India, alleging that the two political parties violated the Representation of People’s Act and FCRA by taking donations from foreign sources.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan who appeared for the NGO had argued in HC that law treats a company as a legal entity for purposes of making contributions.
If such a company had made contributions into the coffers of the two
national parties, it amounted to contribution from a foreign source. As this amount was undisclosed to the EC, the parties were liable for
prosecution under FCRA,
he argued.