NEW DELHI: An Indian court on Friday temporarily suspended an order cancelling Greenpeace India’s operating licence in the country, the group said, the latest twist in its ongoing battle with Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government.
Responding to a petition by Greenpeace, the Madras High Court halted the process to invalidate the environmental group’s registration after authorities in southern Tamil Nadu state cancelled its licence earlier this month.
Greenpeace lawyer Vineet Subramani said the judge had observed “prima facie, the government has not followed the principles of natural justice.”
“He was satisfied with our arguments and granted an unconditional stay on the government order,” Subramani told AFP. No confirmation was available from the court directly.
Greenpeace had claimed the order cancelling its only licence in the country was issued on behest of India’s Home Ministry, which has repeatedly declined to comment when contacted by AFP.
“We were confident the courts would agree that Greenpeace is on sound legal footing and has done nothing wrong, notwithstanding the government’s ridiculous allegations of fraud in this instance,” Priya Pillai of Greenpeace India said in a statement.
The NGO, which is at loggerheads with the Modi-led government, has won a string of court cases against Indian authorities this year.
New Delhi in April suspended Greenpeace’s foreign funding licence and froze its domestic bank accounts for alleged rule violations.
Greenpeace said the move could force it to shut down, but later succeeded in having the bank accounts unfrozen.
The group attributes the actions taken against it to its criticism of the government, which it accuses of causing environmental degradation by excessive use of coal power, deforestation and nuclear projects.
In recent months, Greenpeace has accused Indian authorities of placing its campaigners on suspicious persons list and barring their exit and entry into the country.
One of the group’s senior campaigners was offloaded from a flight to London, where she was scheduled to address British MPs.
Modi’s nationalist government has cancelled the foreign funding licences of around 9,000 charities since a major crackdown began in April and placed the US-based Ford Foundation and Christian charity Caritas on a watch list.
Indian media have reported on a secret intelligence document that apparently warned delays to key development projects sought by Greenpeace and other groups could knock three percentage points off India’s annual growth rate.
Greenpeace India’s shutdown halted temporarily, group says
Greenpeace India’s shutdown halted temporarily, group says
Shamima Begum’s case revived after top European court’s intervention
- European Court of Human Rights challenges British govt’s citizenship deprivation order
- Begum, 26, left London as a teenager to marry a Daesh fighter, with concerns she was trafficked
LONDON: The longtime appeal by Shamima Begum to return to the UK has been revived after the European Court of Human Rights challenged the British government’s block on her return.
The 26-year-old, who left east London aged 15 and traveled to Daesh-held territory in Syria in 2015, had her British citizenship stripped by the then home secretary, Sajid Javid, The Times reported.
The Strasbourg court’s intervention means the UK must now consider if it acted unlawfully under the framework of the European Convention of Human Rights in stripping her citizenship in 2019.
Begum traveled with two friends to Syria. There, she became a child bride to Dutch national Yago Riedijk and had three children who all died as infants.
The court is examining whether the 2019 decision breached the ECHR’s Article Four, which prohibits slavery, servitude and forced labor.
As part of the examination, it could be found that the UK failed in its duty to identify Begum as a potential victim of trafficking and protect her from harm.
Begum’s journey to Syria made national headlines in the UK. The Times newspaper later discovered her whereabouts at a prison camp in Syria operated by Kurdish security forces, where she remains today.
In stripping her citizenship, Javid said the decision was “conducive to the public good.”
He also argued she was eligible for Bangladeshi nationality through her parents, to avoid rendering her stateless.
However, Bangladesh has said repeatedly that Begum is not a citizen of the country.
Begum’s lawyers, from the firm Birnberg Peirce, filed a submission to the Strasbourg court which argued that the UK failed to ask fundamental questions before stripping her citizenship, including concerns over child trafficking.
Gareth Peirce said the UK could now confront previously ignored questions as a result of the court’s intervention, providing “an unprecedented opportunity.”
She added: “It is impossible to dispute that a 15-year-old British child was lured and deceived for the purposes of sexual exploitation.
“It is equally impossible not to acknowledge the catalogue of failures to protect a child known to be at risk.”
The Strasbourg court’s move meant that it was “impossible now not to have real hope of a resolution,” she said, adding that the Begum case raised profound questions about the UK’s responsibility to victims of grooming and trafficking.
Despite years of litigation, Begum has failed to overturn the citizenship deprivation order. She has stated her desire to return to Britain.
In 2020, the Special Immigration Appeals Commission found that conditions in the camp where she is held, Al-Roj, were inhuman and degrading, but that national security considerations prevented any change to her case.
Later, the Supreme Court ruled that Begum was ineligible to return to Britain to take part in the appeal against her citizenship deprivation.
The Strasbourg court could reject appeals by Begum’s lawyers after considering the UK Home Office’s response to its questions.
If the latest appeal is upheld, however, ministers would have to “take account” of the court’s judgment. The court’s rulings are technically binding but lack an enforcement mechanism.
The Strasbourg court is now set to consider written submissions from both sides before deciding whether the case should proceed to a full hearing. A final judgment could take many months.
A Home Office spokesman said: “The government will always protect the UK and its citizens. That is why Shamima Begum — who posed a national security threat — had her British citizenship revoked and is unable to return to the UK.
“We will robustly defend any decision made to protect our national security.”
Maya Foa, CEO of Reprieve, a charity that has campaigned for the return of women and children from Syria, said: “This case only reached the European court because successive UK governments failed to take simple steps to resolve a common problem.
“While our security allies have all been bringing their people home, Britain has been burying its head in the sand. Casting British men, women and children into a legal black hole is a negligent policy that betrays a lack of faith in our justice system.”
