Response of Lawyers Collective on the Suspension of Registration under the FCRA

Response of Lawyers Collective on the Suspension of Registration under the FCRA

The lawyers collective condemns the blatant attempt  of thegovernment of India to victimize the organization and its office bearersIndia Jaisng and Anand Grover .This is noting but a gross misuse of the FCRA Act which is being used to suppress any form  of dissent . it is far too well know that both Anand Grover and Indira Jaising have represented several persons in their professional capacity as lawyers is several cases against the government and the functionaries including  the President of the BJP party ,  Amit Shah  protesting his discharge in the Sorabudin murder case . The lawyers collective intends to challenge the order as   unconstitutional and required to be set aside . 

The order/show cause notice is a malafide act and an act of vindictiveness on the part of the Government. This is being done because of the cases that Lawyers Collective (‘LC’) and its Trustees, Ms. Indira Jaising and Mr. Anand Grover, are involved in, including but are not limited to Sanjiv Bhatt, Yakub Memon and Priya Pillai. The aim is to destroy the credibility of LC by leaking it to the media, before even serving it on LC. LC till today has not received the order purportedly issued on 31st May, 2016, though it is available to the press. Specifically on the order, LC submits as follows:

1. At the outset, LC states that all the foreign contribution (‘FC’) received were spent for the purposes received and accounted for.

2. The allegation against Ms. Jaising was based on the footing that she was a government servant, who was prohibited from receiving FC under the FCRA. However, she was a public servant and not a government servant, on whom there was no bar to receive FC. In any event, FC was received only by LC and Ms. Jaising was only paid remuneration for her services rendered to LC, on whom there is no prohibition. This aspect has not even been looked at by the authorities.

3. So far as Mr. Anand Grover is concerned, it was the mandate of LC to work on the issue of Fundamental Rights, including the right tohealth. The work of United Nations Special Rapporteur on Right toHealth was part of LC’s work. No money was received by Anand Grover as foreign contribution. He was only reimbursed expenses incurred by him, while abroad, for doing LC’s work, including telephone and internet expenses.

4. The Novartis case is part of LC’s mandate to work on access to medicines. Expenses were only incurred for that, including for Ms. Jaising for her advice on the case.

5. Expenses for workshops/seminars/conferences are part of the mandate of LC and money is spent only for that purpose. This allegation is made for the first time now and not in the observation report dated 29.02.2016.

6. The FC received from abroad can be spent abroad. There is no restriction in FCRA at all.
7. LC entered into legitimate contracts with foreigners to provide services in India and abroad. And expenses were incurred for that reason. There is no violation of FCRA at all.

8. The receipt of FC in FC-utilisation account and, opening of certain bank accounts, transfer of FC from FC-utilization to another utilisation account and from local accounts to FC-utilisation has been explained in detail in the Association reply dated to the Inspection Report but not considered.

9. No money was spent on rallies or dharnas having any political hue or colour. FCRA, 2010 was not applicable for expenses incurred in 2009, while in 2011 and 2014, it was spent from domestic/United Nations funding, which is exempt from FCRA.