3 ms·
The government has not done its due diligence on finding if the NGO(s) are involved in this practice. Instead, they ask the NGO(s) to prove that they are not in
by xyzzy92 6y ago
The government has not done its due diligence on finding if the NGO(s) are involved in this practice. Instead, they ask the NGO(s) to prove that they are not involved. How does this even make sense?
- oarsinsync 6y ago> Instead, they ask the NGO(s) to prove that they are not involved. WARNING: I'm applying western principles to India, which may not be correct. To the best of my understanding, signing an affidavit affirming that you're not engaged in an activity does not come with a burden of proof, but it does come with the penalty of perjury. Think of it like a warrant canary. If you haven't been served a warrant, you can state you haven't been served a warrant. If you have been served a warrant, you either have to lie, or say nothing at all.
- arjun1296 6y agoIt would amount to perjury if they lied in their affidavit. If NGOs hadn't committed activities that are not shady, they could have very well given their affidavits. And when served a warrant, I don't think they can take 5th Amendment defense as it may not be applicable for organisations.
- arjun1296 6y agoThey didn't ask NGOs to prove that they didn't do anything wrong. Govt merely asked them to provide a signed affidavit. And also, annual reports which is a mandatory legal requirement.