Credit: DH Illustration
In recent years, India’s regulatory environment has evolved significantly to reflect its growing role in global governance, economic stability, and national security. Among the most pivotal tools in this framework is the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA) – a legislative instrument first introduced in 1976, and strengthened through amendments in 2010 and 2020. This Act is designed to ensure that foreign contributions received by Indian entities are used in a manner consistent with national interests, without influencing the political or public discourse in unintended ways.
The May 2025 amendments to the FCRA Rules further deepen this regulatory vision, aligning India’s compliance mechanisms with international standards such as those of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF). The emphasis is clear: transparency, accountability, and due diligence must underpin the receipt and utilisation of foreign funds. While the spirit behind these changes is widely acknowledged and appreciated, their implications – especially for India’s ecosystem of research organisations, think tanks, and civil society actors – deserve closer scrutiny and constructive dialogue.
As the updated FCRA rules come into effect, several shifts are immediately noticeable. For one, there is a marked expansion in documentation requirements for both fresh registration and renewal. Organisations must
now submit detailed financial statements, project-wise reports and commitment letters from donors, board resolutions, and declarations on their governance structure. Each of these requirements, while aligned with global best practices, introduces a new level of procedural depth.
Further, the rules have introduced provisions aimed at entities engaged in publication-related activities. If such organisations receive foreign contributions, they are now required to affirm through a notarised affidavit that they are not involved in the publication of news or current affairs content. Alternatively, if they are registered under the Registrar of Newspapers for India (RNI), they must obtain a certificate stating they are “Not a Newspaper.” This clause is particularly significant, as it signals an evolving interpretation of the boundary between journalistic work and policy communication.
For institutions engaged in knowledge production, ranging from policy briefs and research studies to thematic newsletters, this change raises several important considerations. These outputs, while academic in intention and often peer-reviewed, may now fall into a grey zone of compliance if they are perceived to influence public opinion. The result is a cautious recalibration across the board: internal editorial teams are increasingly seeking legal counsel before releasing reports, communications staff are adapting content formats, and leadership teams are revisiting donor communication strategies.
This shifting regulatory landscape has naturally prompted questions within the sector. At the heart of the issue lies a conceptual ambiguity: what exactly constitutes “news” under the FCRA? Would a quarterly newsletter summarising data on public health trends qualify? What about a research paper offering recommendations on urban transport policy? These are not theoretical concerns – many organisations face practical constraints in determining the permissible boundaries of their work.
To add to this complexity, the revised rules require granular reporting of how foreign funds are utilised project-wise and location-wise, as well as detailed declarations on any capital assets acquired using such funds. Additionally, all “key functionaries” of the organisation are required to submit personal affidavits affirming their citizenship and disclosing any pending legal cases. These steps reflect a sincere intent to uphold integrity, but they also place a significant administrative burden on smaller organisations and research centres with limited compliance infrastructure and thin and fragile resource capability.
Consultation and internal reform
It is within this context that knowledge-based institutions must navigate forward. Several constructive avenues can help bridge the intent of the regulation with the operational realities of research communication. First, there is scope for refining definitions within the law. A more explicit delineation between academic and journalistic outputs would go a long way in reducing uncertainty. This could take the form of supplementary guidelines, FAQs, or explanatory notes appended to the Rules. Second, establishing a consultative platform between regulators and knowledge institutions could foster periodic dialogue, feedback, and mutual learning, and help in preventing unintentional violations. Third, for entities with a proven record of ethical, non-partisan research, the government could consider offering a ‘green channel’ or fast-track process
for clearances.
Fourth, the issuance of updated guidance notes or compliance handbooks tailored for mid-sized or smaller organisations could help standardise understanding and prevent avoidable mistakes. These resources could be made public and updated as the regulatory environment evolves. Fifth, research institutions themselves can adopt voluntary internal codes of conduct to demonstrate the separation between funding sources and editorial integrity.
Already, many organisations are adapting creatively to the new compliance landscape. Some are shifting from long-form commentary to infographic-led policy summaries. Others are embedding academic disclaimers
and reframing content as thematic digests rather than traditional newsletters. While these changes require effort and adaptation, they also reflect the sector’s resilience and commitment to compliance.
The larger point remains: India’s knowledge ecosystem is a critical part of its democratic architecture. It enables informed policymaking, fosters public engagement, and contributes to India’s aspirations as a knowledge economy. The FCRA, in its strengthened form, can indeed support this vision, provided there is space for interpretation that acknowledges the nuanced nature of research communication.
The amendments are a timely reminder of the importance of financial probity and national interest. At the same time, they also offer an opportunity to reflect on how regulatory clarity and institutional dialogue can help nurture, not constrain, India’s rich tradition of intellectual inquiry and evidence-based analysis. Striking this balance is not only desirable, it is essential. As India charts its course in a complex global landscape towards the national goal of Viksit Bharat at 2047, protecting both sovereignty and the space for knowledge will be vital for inclusive and forward-looking governance.
(Samar and Annapoorna are independent consultants based in Gurugram and Bengaluru, respectively)