HC seeks Centre reply on Greenpeace plea against a/c freeze

Delhi High Court today sought the Centre's response on Greenpeace India's plea challenging suspension of its FCRA registration and freeze on its bank accounts, both domestic and those meant for foreign contributions.

Justice Rajiv Shakdher asked the government counsel to take instructions on whether funds of Greenpeace's domestic accounts can be released for its day-to-day running, including for paying salaries of its volunteers.

"Insofar as salaries and other expenses are concerned, something has to be done. Take instructions," the court said to the lawyer appearing for MHA.

Apart from the Centre, the court also issued notice to and sought reply of the three banks --IDBI, ICICI and Yes Bank -- which had complied with the Home Ministry's (MHA) directive to freeze the NGO's accounts.

It also asked Greenpeace to file an affidavit indicating details of its day-to-day functioning expenses, including salaries to be paid to the NGO's volunteers or workers, and listed the matter for hearing on May 26.

During the hearing, senior advocate Gopal Subramaniam, who appeared for the NGO, argued that the purpose behind freezing of its domestic accounts was to stop it from paying salaries to its employees and volunteers.

He said salaries have not been paid since April 9 as the NGO has no funds for day-to-day activities.

Terming as "subterranean" MHA's conduct of directing banks not to credit donations received into the NGO's account, Subramaniam said such "arrogance of power needs to be corrected".

He also questioned from where the government got the power to freeze its accounts.

Observing that the issue here was whether the government can tolerate dissent in democracy, Subramaniam questioned the 'watch list' and 'prior permission list prepared by the authorities.

MHA on April 9 had suspended the NGO's registration under Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) for 180 days, Greenpeace said in its plea.

The Greenpeace petition said the MHA had earlier issued show cause notice to the NGO why its registration should not be cancelled for allegedly transferring monies from its "FCRA designated bank to the FCRA utilisation account and from there to five other undeclared utilisation bank accounts without informing the authority".

The Ministry had also directed the banks to freeze the designated FCRA account as well as the domestic accounts.

Prior to that, on February 19 the government had written to the banks with whom Greenpeace had accounts not to credit any amount, the NGO told the court.

It alleged that apart from MHA, other instrumentalities of the state have also "attempted to force" Greenpeace to cease operations.

"It is pertinent that the apparent attempt to force the petitioner (Greenpeace) to cease operations has not been limited to the Respondent No 1 (MHA), but extends to other instrumentalities of the State.

"The Petitioner has been subject to attempts at punitive action by the Income Tax Department," it alleged.

During arguments, Subramaniam termed the actions taken against Greenpeace as a "witch hunt" saying the government "just does not want anyone to open their mouth".

He alleged that the government has also accused the NGO of having "induced or promoted conversions".

The senior lawyer also alleged that since Greenpeace had taken the government to court earlier over freezing of its account, it wants to "teach a lesson" to the NGO.

"The collateral action of freezing of all the accounts, FCRA and otherwise, held by the petitioner with Respondents Nos.2 to 4 (banks), is entirely ultra vires of the FCRA and finds no mention in the impugned order (of April 9).

"The Respondent No.1 wholly lacks jurisdiction to freeze any account under section 13 of the Act, even more so when the accounts are not FCRA-designated or utilisation accounts. The Respondent No.1 has no powers to freeze accounts under section 13 of the Act, and none may be assumed," the petition has said.