JAISON PANIKULANGARA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Public Interest Litigation filed by a person, who claims to be the President of Kathikudam Action Council, which appears to be a registered body functioning from Thrissur District. The case put forth by the petitioner is that he preferred complaints before the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Directorate of Enforcement and the Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, regarding the acceptance of foreign contribution by the 5 th respondent i.e., a Member of the Kerala Legislative Assembly. He was elected from the North Paravur constituency. The allegation is that he went to United Kingdom and made a speech at Birmingham to the public gathered and sought for monetary contribution in the name of a foundation called "Punarjani" and claimed that money was proposed for financial assistance to construct residential buildings of the people living in his constituency, who lost everything in the flood engulfed some parts of the State of Kerala in the year 2018.

(2.) According to the petitioner, video clippings of the speech of the 5 th respondent happened to be seen by the petitioner through various electronic media. It is also submitted that when the said issue was raised by media persons in Kerala to the 5th respondent, he replied that he demanded the contribution that was collected and it reached Thiruvananthapuram through a cheque brought by a lady. According to the petitioner, it is admitted by the 5 th respondent that he received a foreign contribution in the name of a natural calamity that happened in the year 2018.

(3.) The sum and substance of the contention is that the aforesaid act of the 5th respondent is illegal in tune with the existing laws prevailing in the country. Therefore, petitioner submitted Ext.P1 complaint before the Government of India and the departments referred to above alleging violation of the provisions of the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act , 2010, hereinafter called, 'Act, 2010'. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the authorities, who are bound to take action against the 5th respondent have not taken any action, which persuaded the petitioner to approach this Court. In the above backdrop petitioner seeks the following reliefs: