Freedom of association and NGO regulation
Freedom of Association and NGO Regulation
1. What is Freedom of Association?
Freedom of association is the right of individuals to come together and collectively express, promote, pursue and defend their common interests. It is a fundamental right in democratic societies and is enshrined in several international human rights instruments such as:
Article 19 (1)(c) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)
Article 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
Article 19(1)(c) of the Indian Constitution (subject to reasonable restrictions)
Freedom of association is essential for trade unions, political parties, social organizations, NGOs, and other civil society groups.
2. What is NGO Regulation?
NGO (Non-Governmental Organization) regulation refers to the legal and administrative framework governing the formation, operation, funding, and activities of NGOs. Regulation aims to ensure transparency, accountability, and that NGOs do not engage in illegal or anti-national activities.
In India, NGOs are regulated through:
Societies Registration Act, 1860
Indian Trusts Act, 1882
Companies Act, 2013 (Section 8 companies)
Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 (FCRA) for foreign funding
Various administrative guidelines and compliance rules.
3. The Tension Between Freedom of Association and NGO Regulation
While freedom of association protects the right to form and operate NGOs freely, the state often imposes regulations for:
National security
Public order
Prevention of money laundering and terrorism financing
Ensuring financial transparency
However, excessive or arbitrary regulation may violate the fundamental right to freedom of association.
Important Case Laws on Freedom of Association and NGO Regulation
Case 1: S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) 3 SCC 1
Facts:
Though mainly about federalism, this case laid down important principles regarding the scope of fundamental rights including freedom of association.
Held:
The Court held that restrictions on fundamental rights must be reasonable and based on valid grounds.
Emphasized that democratic institutions depend on the protection of fundamental freedoms, including association.
Rejected arbitrary dissolutions of state governments or restrictions on political groupings.
Significance:
This case underscored that freedom of association cannot be curtailed arbitrarily, which applies to NGOs as well.
Case 2: People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India (1997) 1 SCC 301
Facts:
The PUCL challenged several government actions restricting NGOs and civil society organizations.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that civil society organizations enjoy protection under freedom of association.
Any restriction must comply with Article 19(1)(c) and be reasonable.
Government must not act arbitrarily in cancelling NGO registrations or denying funding without due process.
Significance:
Affirmed constitutional protection for NGOs and their critical role in democracy.
Case 3: Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India (2012) 6 SCC 1
Facts:
This case dealt with the right of private unaided schools (which are NGOs) to manage their affairs.
Held:
The Court recognized that the right to manage and regulate an institution falls under freedom of association.
However, reasonable regulation in public interest is permissible.
Emphasized balancing NGO autonomy with public interest.
Significance:
Acknowledged the importance of autonomy but validated reasonable state regulation.
Case 4: People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (1982) 3 SCC 235
Facts:
PUDR challenged government restrictions on NGOs working with laborers.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that the right to associate and organize is essential for protecting vulnerable groups.
Restrictions on NGO activities must be scrutinized strictly.
Reaffirmed freedom of association as vital for social justice.
Significance:
This case recognized NGOs as protectors of marginalized rights, deserving constitutional protection.
Case 5: K. Ahammed Hussain v. Union of India AIR 1999 SC 498
Facts:
Concerned the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act and its impact on NGOs receiving foreign funding.
Held:
The Court upheld the validity of reasonable restrictions on foreign funding to prevent misuse.
However, the government must not exercise arbitrary power to withhold permissions.
Transparency and procedural fairness are necessary.
Significance:
Balanced sovereignty concerns with freedom of association.
Case 6: Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India (2016) 8 SCC 227
Facts:
Petition challenged excessive restrictions imposed by FCRA on NGOs.
Held:
The Court emphasized that the government’s power to regulate NGOs must be exercised transparently and fairly.
Excessive or vague restrictions can violate freedom of association.
Ordered review of NGO suspensions and emphasized due process.
Significance:
Highlighted the importance of procedural safeguards in NGO regulation.
Case 7: Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1
Facts:
Challenged Section 66A of the IT Act for being vague and violating freedom of speech and association online.
Held:
The Supreme Court struck down Section 66A, stating vague laws can chill free expression and association.
Recognized the internet as a platform for association and activism.
Significance:
Expanded the understanding of freedom of association to digital spaces where many NGOs operate.
Summary Table of Key Principles
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Protection of Association | NGOs have the right to form and operate under Article 19(1)(c) |
| Reasonable Restrictions | Regulations must be reasonable, non-arbitrary, and procedural |
| Due Process | Fair hearing before registration cancellation or funding denial |
| Transparency | Clear guidelines and openness in NGO regulation |
| Balancing Act | Protect sovereignty and security without undermining rights |
| Digital Association | Freedom of association includes online and digital platforms |
Conclusion
Freedom of association is a cornerstone of democracy and critical for NGOs to function effectively. While the state has legitimate reasons to regulate NGOs — for security, transparency, and public order — such regulation must always respect constitutional protections and due process. The judiciary has consistently protected NGOs from arbitrary state action and ensured that restrictions comply with constitutional tests of reasonableness and fairness.
RELATED Blog
0 comments