The Supreme Court on Friday ruled that organisations that dissent from the government’s policies retain the right to receive foreign funding as long as they do not have any political agenda or mission.

It held that a voluntary organisation’s support for public causes through the “legitimate means of dissent like bandh, hartal, etc” cannot deprive it of the benefit of foreign funds.

Rule 3 of Section 5 of the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act bans foreign funding for political parties and organisations engaged in political activities.

Petitioner Indian Social Action Forum (Insaf), and NGO, had challenged the government’s wide powers to declare an organisation to be engaged in political activity, thus depriving it of foreign funding.

“Any organisation which supports the cause of a group of citizens agitating for their rights without a political goal or objective cannot be penalised by being declared as an organisation of a political nature,” the bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Deepak Gupta ruled.

“Support to public causes by resorting to legitimate means of dissent like bandh, hartal, etc, cannot deprive an organisation of its legitimate right of receiving foreign contribution.”

The judgment added: “To make it clear, such of those organisations which are not involved in active politics or party politics do not fall within the purview of Rule 3.”

But the court made “it clear that organisations used for channelling foreign funds by political parties cannot escape the rigour of the act provided there is concrete material”.

Insaf had challenged a Delhi High Court judgment that had dismissed its petition, which had sought to have certain sections and rules of the FCRA and its Rules declared unconstitutional.

In particular, it had argued that the power that Section 5(1) of the act confers on the government to declare an organisation as having a political nature is unbridled and arbitrary and violates various fundamental rights. Such power would allow the authorities to deny an eligible NGO access to legitimate foreign funds, it said.

However, while holding that organisations that have no political objective or agenda cannot be deprived of the right to receive foreign funds, the court upheld the various provisions of the act on the ground that they were intended to protect sovereign rights and national interests.

“A balance has to be drawn between the object sought to be achieved by the legislation and the rights of the voluntary organisations to have access to foreign funds. The purpose for which the statute prevents organisations of a political nature from receiving foreign funds is to ensure that the administration is not influenced by foreign funds,” it said.

“(But) such of those organisations which are working for the social and economic welfare of the society cannot be brought within the purview of the act or the rules by enlarging the scope of the term ‘political interests’. We are of the opinion that the expression ‘political interests’ in Rule 3(v) has to be construed to be in connection with active politics or party politics.”

Insaf told the court it was involved in resisting globalisation, combating communalism and defending democracy.