 "Gavel")
The Madras High Court on Friday stayed an order cancelling Greenpeace India’s society registration by the Tamil Nadu Registrar of Societies early in November.
A letter dated November 4 by the district registrar, Chennai (south), had said the green group had violated provisions of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975. These specifically involved the under-reporting of contributions received from foreign sources for 2004-06 and 2009-10. The registrar’s office had ordered the group to dissolve itself through an internal resolution or face forced liquidation after 30 days. On Friday, the high court said the RoS had not followed “principles of natural justice”. Greenpeace had complained it was not granted a hearing and an earlier order mandating its concerns be addressed by the government had not been complied with.
Cancellation of the registration would have meant effective closure of all operations by the group, which had been at odds with the Union home ministry since last year over issues relating to foreign contributions and alleged anti-national activities. Greenpeace India said their accounts were in the public domain and “available for all to inspect”. It had earlier alleged the order cancelling its only licence in the country came directly from the home ministry.
The registrar’s office had also alleged the group was not independent, being under the authority of a foreign entity — Stichting Greenpeace Council, based in Netherlands.
Greenpeace had said it was in a free association with the Netherlands-based entity and all income, from domestic and foreign sources, had been reported correctly under laws.
Greenpeace India Executive Director Vinuta Gopal said in a petition the order was false and it contravened the orders already passed on August 4 this year. As a charitable organisation, the petitioner depended on donations from the public. He claimed that the action of the Registrar had already impacted the public contribution with a resultant “chilling effect on the fundamental rights” of the society and its members to establish and freely operate an association and the right to freedom of expression. The society would be put to irreparable loss and harm if the cancellation order was not quashed/stayed, the petitioner contended.
