MillenniumPost
Delhi

HC says no for CBI probe into AAP’s funding

The Delhi high court on Thursday dismissed a plea seeking CBI probe into past and present funding of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) in the alleged violation of Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA).

“The petition is dismissed,” a Bench of Chief Justice G Rohini and Rajiv Sahai Endlaw said, while passing order on the PIL alleging that AAP has been receiving foreign funds in violation of FCRA.

The Bench also said that the petitioner, advocate M L Sharma, approached the investigator and it is not that the agency has declined to entertain his complaint.

Earlier, the Ministry of Home Affairs had informed the Bench that nothing was found against AAP in its probe regarding allegations that it had received offshore funds in violation of FCRA provisions, after which the court reserved its verdict on the plea.

AAP had termed the allegations against it as “baseless” while contending that the party had not flouted any law in receiving foreign funds and got donations worth Rs 30 crore from Indian citizens only, of which about Rs 8.5 crore had come from NRIs.

The plea, moved before the high court on February 4, had also sought CBI probe against Home Ministry officials, who in their report had earlier stated that donations made by eight foreign residents to AAP, were not in violation of the FCRA.

Denying violation of foreign exchange or other laws, AAP had earlier contended that the PIL accusing it and its founding members of having illegally received foreign funding was “scandalous, frivolous, motivated and baseless”.

AAP had claimed that it has “very small amount of funds and has the most transparent method of political funding among all parties”.

The PIL had also alleged that “undisclosed funding to AAP was coming from terrorist groups” and that the party had succeeded in stalling Home Ministry probe against it and managed to get a favourable reply to mislead the court.

It had alleged that it was a case of serious corruption on part of the ministry officials who filed an “un- investigated” report despite high court direction.
Next Story
Share it