For a social activist who fights communalism, Teesta Setalvad is quite a polarising figure herself. Without her relentless efforts, the case against the Gujarat government in the 2002 riots case may not have got the same kind of attention. Yet, she’s branded as an “outrage factory” by her critics who accuse her of manufacturing communal fear.
On 16 June 2016, the Ministry of Home Affairs cancelled the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act licence of her NGO Sabrang.
And almost a year ago, on 8 July 2015, the CBI had registered a case against Sabrang Communication, represented by Teesta, her husband Javed Anand and others, for accepting $290,000 from the US-based Ford Foundation, which is on a government watch list since April this year.
The allegation had followed a 23-hour raid at Setalvad’s residence and office in Mumbai. Setalvad claimed it was “political vendetta”.
The Quint had interviewed CBI Spokesperson Kanchan Prasad who said the investigating agency was able to find documents that support their allegation.
What are exactly these charges?
Here’s a detailed look at what the CBI was going after back then and Setalvad’s corresponding clarifications.
Foreign Contribution Regulation Act, 2010
Charge 1
Section 3(1) states that no foreign contribution shall be accepted by any correspondent, columnist, cartoonist, editor, owner, printer or publisher of a registered newspaper.
Teesta’s Defence
According to Teesta, Sabrang Communications and Publishing Pvt Ltd Co signed a Consultancy Agreement with Ford Foundation in 2004 and 2006 to “address the issue of caste and communalism through a clearly defined set of activities”. The activist claims she or her husband Javed Anand were not paid by Ford to discharge editorial functions.
She further suggests that the money paid to Sabrang Communications was not a contribution, but money paid as part of a business transaction, which is allowed as per Section 4 of the Act.
In a written statement issued after the raid, she writes “Ford Foundation in fact deducted TDS with every installment of consultancy feed it paid to Sabrang Communications”.
Charge 2
Section 11 of the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act, 2010 says that no person having a definite cultural, economic, educational, religious or social programme shall accept foreign contribution unless a certificate of registration has been obtained from the Central government.
Teesta’s Defence
There has been no clarification from Teesta on whether a certificate was sought from the government before signing the consultancy agreement with Ford Foundation.
Charge 3
Section 19 of the 2010 Act states that a person who has been granted a certificate or has been given prior permission shall maintain an account of the foreign contributions received and a record of the manner in which the contribution has been utilised.
Teesta’s Defence
Setalvad claims to have provided copies of all documents to the FCRA team. She also claimed to have submitted 25,000 pages of documents to the CBI, but did not specifically refer to the certificate that needs to be issued from the government of India before such a transaction takes place.
Foreign Contribution Regulation Act, 1976
The ancient version of the 2010 Act did not allow for any foreign donations to Indian organisations. But the CBI has invoked the 1976 law because the alleged violations took place between 2004 to 2009. It also provides for stricter punishment.
Charge 4
Section 23 states that any person who assists any person, political party or organisation in accepting any foreign contribution can be punished with imprisonment up to five years, or with fine, or with both.
Teesta’s Defence
Teesta claims the FCRA team is confusing lobbying which is a part of the political process in America with advocacy initiatives through which NGOs engage with the government on social and religious issues.
Charge 5
Section 25 prohibits the guilty party from accepting foreign contribution for a period of three years from the date of conviction.
As for the Indian Penal Code, Teesta has been charged under Section 120B which deals with criminal conspiracy and can attract a punishment of up to six months with or without fine. Additionally, she also faces Section 35 and 37 which is punishable with a jail term of up to 2 years, or fine, or both.
(At The Quint, we are answerable only to our audience. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member. Because the truth is worth it.)