Mere Plea Of 'Inconvenience' Not A Ground To Challenge Constitutional Validity Of A Legislation : Supreme Court

Mere plea of inconvenience is not enough to assail constitutional validity of a legislation, the Supreme Court observed while upholding the 2020 amendments made to the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act 2010.

The court observed that there is presumption that the Parliament understands and reacts to the needs of its own people as per the exigencies and experience gained in the implementation of the law. 

The bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar observed thus while considering the contentions raised by writ petitioners that the amendment would cause gross inconvenience to them. They contended that they will be forced to visit Delhi to open account in the designated branch. They contended that the impact of amended provisions is to denude the registered associations to have physical access to their primary account at Delhi along with a host of other restrictions.

In this regard, the bench observed that the opening of main FCRA account in the designated bank as per the law cannot be brushed aside on the specious argument of some inconvenience being caused to the registered associations.

"Assuming that some inconvenience is likely to be caused to few applicants, but the constitutionality of a statute cannot be assailed on the basis of fortuitous circumstances and more so when it being only a one-time exercise to ensure inflow of foreign contribution through one channel only, being a precondition for grant of permission. There is no restriction regarding utilisation of the funds only through that (primary) FCRA account. For, it is open to the recipient to operate multiple accounts in other scheduled banks for its utilisation", the bench observed.

The court noted that the SBI has stated on affidavit that the FCRA accounts opened in its designated branch can be operated online on real-time basis without the need for physical presence of the account holder or its officials.

The bench added that mere plea of inconvenience is not enough to attract the constitutional inhibition. It said:

We need to bear in mind that there is presumption that the Parliament understands and reacts to the needs of its own people as per the exigencies and experience gained in the implementation of the law. Mere plea of inconvenience is not enough to attract the constitutional inhibition. The Courts ought not to adopt a doctrinaire approach in construing the amended provisions and undermine the legislative intent of strengthening the regulatory mechanism concerning foreign contribution. The legislature enjoys considerable latitude while exercising its wisdom on the basis of inputs collated from different quarters.. There is intrinsic evidence to indicate that the change effected by the amendments is to serve the legitimate Government purpose and has a rational nexus to the object of the Principal Act and the amendments, and that the preamendment dispensation (unamended Section 7) was not sufficient to effectively regulate the acceptance and utilisation of foreign contribution as predicated by the Principal Act.

The court also rejected the argument that the unamended provision was less restrictive and was working very well, serving the objective of the Principal Act.

"The fact that unamended provision was less restrictive, cannot be the basis to test the constitutional validity of the provision on the touchstone of Article 19(1)(c) or 19(1)(g) or Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The amended Section 7, being plain and clear and having nexus with the object sought to be achieved and is necessitated because of sovereignty and integrity of India or security of the State, public order and in the interests of the general public. It is unfathomable as to how the amended provision can be regarded as unconstitutional on any parameter.", the bench added.

Case details