The Delhi High Court
decision in case of Association for Democratic Reforms vs. UOI ([2014] 43
Taxmann.com 443 (Del.)) is a reminder of certain very widely framed provisions
of law originally of FERA times that continue to have impact. It is very timely too in
this election season when many companies have or may still be giving electoral
contributions. Even more so considering that the new Section 182 of the
Companies Act, 2013, has permitted a higher electoral contribution of 7.50% of
profits as compared to 5% under the 1956 Act.
decision in case of Association for Democratic Reforms vs. UOI ([2014] 43
Taxmann.com 443 (Del.)) is a reminder of certain very widely framed provisions
of law originally of FERA times that continue to have impact. It is very timely too in
this election season when many companies have or may still be giving electoral
contributions. Even more so considering that the new Section 182 of the
Companies Act, 2013, has permitted a higher electoral contribution of 7.50% of
profits as compared to 5% under the 1956 Act.
Essentially, the Court has
held that political parties/election candidates cannot accept electoral
contributions from an Indian company with more than 50% “foreign holding”,
defined as “foreign contribution”. The definition of what constitutes foreign contributions
is so wide that it may bring numerous Indian listed and unlisted companies in
its net.
held that political parties/election candidates cannot accept electoral
contributions from an Indian company with more than 50% “foreign holding”,
defined as “foreign contribution”. The definition of what constitutes foreign contributions
is so wide that it may bring numerous Indian listed and unlisted companies in
its net.
Here are, summarised and
simplified, the facts as stated and the law as per the decision. Vedanta
Resources plc is a company incorporated in England and Wales. It held majority
shares in two Indian companies – Sterlite Industries Limited and Sesa Goa
Limited. Sterlite and Sesa Goa made electoral contributions to political
parties. Question is whether the parties that accepted contributions violated
the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976 (FCRA). It can be seen that, on
this aspect, the FCRA 2010 is worded substantially similar to FCRA 1976. Hence,
though the Court clarified that it was dealing with FCRA 1976, it ought to
apply for FCRA 2010 too.
simplified, the facts as stated and the law as per the decision. Vedanta
Resources plc is a company incorporated in England and Wales. It held majority
shares in two Indian companies – Sterlite Industries Limited and Sesa Goa
Limited. Sterlite and Sesa Goa made electoral contributions to political
parties. Question is whether the parties that accepted contributions violated
the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976 (FCRA). It can be seen that, on
this aspect, the FCRA 2010 is worded substantially similar to FCRA 1976. Hence,
though the Court clarified that it was dealing with FCRA 1976, it ought to
apply for FCRA 2010 too.
FCRA prohibits acceptance
of electoral contributions by political parties/candidates from “foreign
sources”. Foreign sources includes a company registered in India in which more
than 50% shares are held by certain specified foreign parties such as foreign
corporations, foreign citizens, foreign trusts/societies, etc. Violation of
this provision entails fine/imprisonment. Since in Sterlite/Sesa Goa both,
Vedanta held more than 50%, the Court held that this prohibition, was directly
attracted. Curiously, it was also noted that Anil Aggarwal, an Indian citizen,
held more than 50% capital in Vedanta. Thus, in a sense, the ultimate holder
was an Indian citizen. However, since FCRA did not make any exception to such
companies, the Court held that the FCRA prohibition applied.
of electoral contributions by political parties/candidates from “foreign
sources”. Foreign sources includes a company registered in India in which more
than 50% shares are held by certain specified foreign parties such as foreign
corporations, foreign citizens, foreign trusts/societies, etc. Violation of
this provision entails fine/imprisonment. Since in Sterlite/Sesa Goa both,
Vedanta held more than 50%, the Court held that this prohibition, was directly
attracted. Curiously, it was also noted that Anil Aggarwal, an Indian citizen,
held more than 50% capital in Vedanta. Thus, in a sense, the ultimate holder
was an Indian citizen. However, since FCRA did not make any exception to such
companies, the Court held that the FCRA prohibition applied.
The Delhi High Court
accordingly held that the provisions of FCRA were violated. It also required
the Central Government to inquire whether contributions from other similar
placed companies have been received and take necessary action within six
months.
accordingly held that the provisions of FCRA were violated. It also required
the Central Government to inquire whether contributions from other similar
placed companies have been received and take necessary action within six
months.
There are numerous
companies in India that have more than 50% foreign holding. There are subsidiaries
of foreign companies in India. There are companies that have more than 50% FDI.
So are companies that have more than 50% holdings by FII/PE/non-citizens. The
definition of what constitutes foreign source is very wide in FCRA and it is
very likely that most of these companies would be hit by the provision.
companies in India that have more than 50% foreign holding. There are subsidiaries
of foreign companies in India. There are companies that have more than 50% FDI.
So are companies that have more than 50% holdings by FII/PE/non-citizens. The
definition of what constitutes foreign source is very wide in FCRA and it is
very likely that most of these companies would be hit by the provision.
Companies are now permitted
to contribute through electoral trusts and many companies have used this route.
Since electoral trusts accept donations from numerous parties and the receiving
political party may not know who is the ultimate donor from the pool. However,
to me, it seems that FCRA prohibition would still apply. The widely framed
provisions ensure that a person receiving donations from the company – the
electoral trust in this case – would have responsibility.
to contribute through electoral trusts and many companies have used this route.
Since electoral trusts accept donations from numerous parties and the receiving
political party may not know who is the ultimate donor from the pool. However,
to me, it seems that FCRA prohibition would still apply. The widely framed
provisions ensure that a person receiving donations from the company – the
electoral trust in this case – would have responsibility.
The fear of the foreign hand – the driving force
behind this law as originally framed – is relevant today too. However, in these
changed times, continuing such a blanket prohibition does not seem to make
sense.