Centre opposes CPR’s plea in high court to use portion of funds in FD

The ministry of home affairs (MHA) on Tuesday opposed a plea by the Centre for Policy Research (CPR) in the Delhi high court seeking permission to utilise 25% of its funds in fixed deposits for payment of salaries of its employees, and said allowing the think tank’s request would have “grave ramifications”.

It came a day after the MHA, in an affidavit, said that the CPR has been receiving foreign contribution for “purposes other than for which it was registered” and using it for “undesirable purposes”.

The Centre suspended the CPR’s licence under the FCRA over alleged violation of the law on February 27, months after the Income Tax department conducted a survey on its premises. The CPR has denied all the allegations.

Appearing for the CPR, senior advocate Arvind Datar argued before Justice Subramonium Prasad that Rule 14 of the FCRA allows an organisation whose certificate of registration has been suspended to spend up to 25% of the unutilised amount lying with it for declared aims and objects. The counsel said that the fixed deposits (FD) lying with the CPR should be included in the 25% unutilised amount.

“…The idea is I have a right to get 25%. The relaxation is because I’ve been suspended. I have got day to day expenses and I have to pay salaries,” Datar argued, and apprised the court of the MHA’s decision to extend the CPR’s suspension under FCRA for six months.

As the Centre opposed the plea, the court sought to know the reason behind its refusal to permit the CPR utilise its FDs to pay salaries to employees. “Why can’t he be permitted to break the FDs and pay the salaries?” Justice Prasad asked the MHA’s counsel Arunima Dwivedi.

To this, Dwivedi told the court that the CPR’s FD amount does not include in the unutilised amount and allowing the CPR’s request would have “grave ramifications” as the petitioner is “not the only one”.

The court posted the matter for hearing on Wednesday.

Following the suspension of its licence, the CPR moved the court challenging the decision.