MHA fails to provide adequate answers to MPs or RTI queries

Livemint: New Delhi: Friday, 24 July 2015.

Human rights groups have slated the government for failing to give satisfactory replies on Wednesday to several Members of Parliament who sought details of the non-governmental organisations against whom it has taken action.

Amid Wednesday’s furore in Parliament, as many as 18 Lok Sabha MPs from different political parties such as the Congress, Samjwadi Party and All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, raised two questions to the ministry of home affairs (MHA) about its ongoing action against foreign-funded non governmental organisations (NGOs).

However, in his response, minister of state in the MHA Kiren Rijiju merely submitted the preamble to the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 (FCRA) and gave a few figures on the suspended organisations and the fines collected by the ministry for alleged violations.

He failed to give the names of the NGOs, the specific allegations against them or the actions taken much like the response from his ministry to a right to information request filed in April by activist Venkatesh Nayak.

The MPs put several pointed questions in Parliament seeking information about the inputs or recommendations from the Intelligence Bureau on foreign funding of NGOs, but Rijiju’s answers were vague.

His reply was that since May 2011, 20 associations NGOs have been prohibited from receiving foreign contributions; accounts of 23 associations have been frozen; and 15 cases were referred to the Central Bureau of Investigation and 10 to state police forces for further investigation and prosecution.

In 2014, he added, fines totalling over `52 lakh were served on 341 associations for late/non-submission of mandatory annual returns and fines of a similar amount on 24 associations for receipt and utilization of foreign contribution without obtaining registration or prior permission under the FCRA.

Rijiju did not disclose the names and details of these NGOs even though the questions specifically asked for this information.

Rijiju flatly denied that the government was attempting to muzzle civil society organisations’ (CSO) in response to a question raised by the AIADMK’s R. Vanaroja.

(For questions and Rijiju’s complete response, click here and here)

“The minister’s answers show the economical use of information by the government, when sharing information with Parliamentarians,” said Nayak who is also a programme coordinator at New Delhi-based Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, an international non-profit organisation.

According to him, the government wants to show that its actions are a result of technical violations by NGOs especially their failure to file annual returns, thus deflecting attention from charges that it is persecuting NGOs like Greenpeace that are critical of the government.

Nayak filed an RTI application in April with four questions to the MHA’s FCRA division. It was returned on 10 July with no answers.

His RTI had asked for a complete list of entities that have been placed under government watch, a copy of all correspondence sent to the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), a copy of replies received from the RBI or any other bank and a copy of the complete list of entities whose FCRA registration has been cancelled in April.

Three of the four questions were returned to Nayak, saying the information cannot be provided because it may endanger the physical life or safety of an individual or will identify the source of information that may be assisting law enforcement agencies. The fourth answer claims the information is available online, which it was no until 23 July.

Sailesh Gandhi, a former information commissioner with the Central Information Commission, said, “By a stretch of imagination, I would assume that the Public Information Officer or the ministry feel that their sources might be endangered or that whistle-blowers who have come forward to give evidence against erring NGOs will be put at risk...

“However, if that is the case, the names of such sources or whistle blowers can easily be blacked out or withheld,” he said.

The RTI act provides for giving out partial information. V Suresh, national general secretary of the People’s Union for Civil Liberties, believes this response from the government is undemocratic and unethical. A human rights lawyer, Suresh said: “The legalities apart, the government is duty bound to make public any action taken against the alleged erring organisations, in the interest of transparency and accountability.”

“The secrecy surrounding these actions only gives credence to our claim that the ministry is using the FCRA in a selective manner,” said Nayak.

“If the MHA is seeking high standards of transparency from NGOs, why is it not applying the same to itself?” said Nayak who will file a first appeal with the Joint Secretary G.K. Dwivedi, MHA seeking the same information. Whether the Lok Sabha MPs whose questions were similarly unanswered will also take follow-up action remains to be seen.