FCRA Bill allows taking over places of worship but no change of character

New Delhi: A bill seeking to amend the law on foreign funds proposes to take over places of worship built or renovated using donations from abroad if it loses the licence for collecting such money.

The Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill 2026 tabled in Parliament last week, however, does not allow changing the “religious character” of such places while entrusting its management to a person whose terms and conditions will be determined later.

The Bill proposes to take over any asset created using foreign funds if an entity allowed to collect such donations gets their licence cancelled, ceased or suspended. The assets in such cases are vested in a “designated authority” permanently if the entities fail to renew their licence within a specified time.

It also proposes that such assets permanently vested in the designated authority could be transferred to “any ministry, department, authority, or agency” of the union or state governments or to any local authority. The assets could be sold but no functionaries of the entity facing the action can buy it.

According to the Bill, the ‘designated authority’ can entrust the management or operation of a place of worship, which is vested in it permanently as per law, to “such a person in such a manner and on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed and ensure that the religious character of such place of worship is maintained”.

The introduction of the Bill in Lok Sabha on March 25 attracted objections from the Opposition calling it "dangerous" even as Minister of State for Home Nityanand Rai said it "dangerous for those who engage in forced religious conversion using foreign funds as well as to those who use it for personal gains.

The Bill has attracted opposition from parties like the Congress and Trinamool Congress as well as organisations like Catholic Bishops’ Conference of India (CBCI), which said it threatens the operational survival of minorities and civil society organisations dependent on foreign funds for essential social, educational and charitable work.

Congress leader and former IAS officer Kannan Gopinath found fault with the repeated use of 'public interest' and 'if satisfied' clauses in Section 16 of the Bill without any definition, grants "near-unfettered discretion" to take over by the government.

"This effectively enables state operational control of NGOs under the guise of asset supervision without requiring any proof of wrongdoing," he said.

He also claimed the vesting of assets created even partly from foreign funds vest wholly in the 'designated authority' creates a "powerful incentive" for the State to pursue technical or minor violations to trigger cancellation or surrender and capture high-value infrastructure that may have been primarily funded domestically.

Gopinathan said, “organisations that blend foreign and domestic funding face disproportionate risk: a small foreign grant could jeopardise entire assets”.