One of the reforms in the FC4 returns carried out in 2017 (and became effective for the 2018-19 set of returns) is the printing of the name of the Chief Functionary (CF) of FCRA-NGO, along with their signature. Using this information, we attempt to answer the following self-posed question in this Post: Which FCRA-NGO (if any) share the same CF? In other words, is any person, the CF of more than one FCRA-NGO?
Not so surprisingly, the answer is yes. But what is surprising, is the number of such occurrences. In our estimate, more than 1500 FCRA-NGOs have a CF who is also a CF in another FCRA-NGO (within this set of 1500). We actually wanted to write this post on an all-India basis. But, the complexity of posting 1500 names, addresses, FCRA registration numbers etc.. was too difficult for us to handle. Thus, in this Post, we limit ourselves to FCRA-NGOs registered in Delhi.
In this exercise, we did not check if the CF of a Delhi FCRA-NGO is also a CF of a FCRA-NGO in any other State. We are indeed aware of at least two individuals who fall in such a category. We shall present them, when we present data of those States, later.
How do we ascertain that a particular name printed as CF in two different FC4 returns represents the same person? The following were used: (i) Exact Name Match and (ii) Matching of Signatures. In one case, the name of the CF in two FCRA-NGOs, i.e., Haq: Centre for Child Rights and SRUTI (Society for Rural Urban & Tribal Initiative), was the same. However, the signatures were different. In this case, we ascertained the identity based on the description of the CF presented in SRUTI’s website, which mentioned that its CF was also the CF of Haq: Centre for Child Rights. We surmise that such difficulties in ascertaining the identity of individuals on the Board of FCRA-NGOs may have prompted the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) to demand the provision of their Aadhaar numbers at the time of renewal of FCRA certificate or for Prior Permission. Notwithstanding this, we doubt if MHA would part with such identification specifics to the common public online, as it is usually reticent and guards details of 'non-profit' organizations as if they are a National Secret. In our opinion, an equivalent of a Director Identification Number (DIN, as for companies) would have been ideal and that number could have been made public.
We do not know if donning more than one CF hat violates any law. Furthermore, very importantly, we do not pass any judgements on either the individuals or the FCRA-NGO presented in the following list.
We acknowledge the FCRA Wing for providing the Annual Returns of FCRA-NGOs online for the general public to read, without forcing citizenry to use the ill-purposed, so-called RTI.
Ok then, here is the list.