Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court on Wednesday, April 8, observed that several non-governmental organisations (NGO) claiming to work for orphans and underprivileged children were not genuine but exploitative, and restrained a Hyderabad-based charity group – already under the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) scanner for alleged fund misappropriation – from disposing of or transferring any of its properties.
Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka made the observations while hearing a petition seeking a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into alleged financial irregularities by Operation Mobilisation (OM) India Group of Charities, which runs the Good Shepherd Schools programme for underprivileged students.
The court noted that such organisations allegedly resort to dubious methods to raise funds, including falsely portraying children with families as orphans to attract foreign donations, and that the same child’s name was allegedly sent to donors in different countries under the pretext of scholarships.
The court passed interim orders restraining the group, its functionaries and representatives from alienating, selling, transferring, leasing or creating third-party rights over any movable or immovable properties and charitable assets owned by the NGO. It sought responses from the Centre, the state Home Department, the CBI and OM Group, and posted the matter to April 23.
A pattern of alleged fraud
The case has been building for several years. The ED, after searches, attached a dozen immovable assets with a combined market value of Rs 15 crore belonging to the group. The agency identified Rs 15.37 crore as proceeds of crime arising from the diversion of student collections and government subsidies.
The agency alleged that OM India’s schools collected regular fees, including book charges, uniform and bus fees, from students who were being represented to foreign donors as fully sponsored. The schools also received government aid under the Right to Education (RTE) scheme and state scholarship programmes, yet students were charged full fees, with government reimbursements allegedly diverted to the group’s head office rather than passed on to students.
In what the ED described as a more egregious misrepresentation, the group allegedly portrayed ordinary school students as “joginis” — sexually-exploited temple attendants — to foreign donors to solicit higher sponsorship amounts. Donations for “jogini rehabilitation” ranged from USD 60-68 per month, compared to USD 20-28 per month for regular student sponsorship.
Images of regular students and unrelated children were uploaded on donor websites and social media to support these false claims, the agency said.
The ED also alleged that funds were diverted to affiliated entities for their core activities and used for “extravagant” foreign travel by senior functionaries, including business class air travel by key functionary Dr Joseph Gregory D’Souza.
The Ministry of Home Affairs has ordered non-renewal of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA) licence of multiple OM India entities and frozen their accounts.
Court proceedings
Senior advocate J Sudheer, appearing for petitioner Gauripaga Albert Lyell, argued that the group’s management lacked transparency, with close relatives appointed as directors and administrators in place of long-serving staff. He said around 63 employees were removed arbitrarily, with 20 approaching the labour court.
Funds were received from the US, Australia, New Zealand and other countries, he said.
The Telangana Criminal Investigation Department (CID) had filed a chargesheet in August 2023, but the petitioner alleged that issues relating to foreign donations were not adequately examined. The ED later registered a case based on the CID probe and provisionally attached some properties. The petitioner also alleged that OM Group was attempting to sell properties in violation of Supreme Court orders.
CBI special public prosecutor Srinivas Kapatia told the court that no complaint had been received against the NGO. The judge, however, remarked that many NGOs misuse funds collected in the name of service, and adjourned the matter for further hearing.
| | 
