Delhi HC permits Centre to submit info on plea filed by Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative

By ANI | Published: July 26, 2021 09:35 PM2021-07-26T21:35:19+5:302021-07-26T21:45:02+5:30

The Delhi High Court on Monday granted permission to the Centre to submit information in a sealed cover in connection with a petition filed by Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI).

Delhi HC permits Centre to submit info on plea filed by Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative | Delhi HC permits Centre to submit info on plea filed by Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative

Delhi HC permits Centre to submit info on plea filed by Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative

The Delhi High Court on Monday granted permission to the Centre to submit information in a sealed cover in connection with a petition filed by Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI).

Advocate Anil Soni, appearing for Centre, told the Court that the information to be shared was in a secret classified document and they want to share it in a sealed cover. He also informed the Court that the government had inputs from Intelligence on this.

Justice Rekha Palli, however, questioned the Centre's counsel over sharing the information in such a way.

The Court was hearing CHRI petition seeking quashing of suspension order dated June 7, 2021, passed by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of India, Foreigners Division (FCRA Monitoring Unit), Ministry of Home Affairs under Section 13 of the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act, 2010 suspending the Petitioner's FCRA Registration for hundred and eighty (180) days.

The Court has listed the matter for further hearing on July 29.

CHRI has said that a 180-day suspension is a drastic measure that threatens the very existence of the Petitioner, apart from causing great harm to its reputation built painstakingly over three decades.

"The consequent freezing of Petitioner's receipt and utilisation bank accounts have severely restricted its planned programme activities. The Petitioner is now not in a position to pay salaries to its 40 staff members and consultants, whose livelihoods depend on it, especially in these difficult times precipitated by the COVID-19 pandemic, " the petitioner said.

The organization said that the suspension order was unreasonable, manifestly arbitrary, excessive and disproportionate, on the face of it being based on wholly incorrect facts, and for violating basic principles of natural justice as well as petitioner's constitutionally protected rights under Article 14 and Article 19(1)(c) and 19(1)(g).

( With inputs from ANI )

Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor

Open in app