FCRA Bill needs close scrutiny

The proposed Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) Amendment Bill, 2026, introduced in the Lok Sabha recently, is coercive, unfair and poses a threat to organisations that have contributed significantly towards nation-building.

Masked as a move in the interest and security of the country, it appears to be an attempt to arbitrarily control non-governmental organisations (NGOs), diminish their autonomy and escape scrutiny and accountability. The Bill seeks to amend the FCRA Act, 2010, under which registration is mandatory for NGOs and associations to receive foreign funds or donations.

The FCRA, originally enacted in 1976 and comprehensively replaced in 2010, has been amended in 2016, 2018, and 2020, each time tightening the regulatory framework for foreign-funded organisations.

When the Bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha on March 25, Opposition parties vociferously opposed it, demanding its withdrawal. Discussion and passage were deferred, also perhaps due to the elections in Kerala and Tamil Nadu, where Christians and Muslims hold sway.

According to the Ministry of Home Affairs’ portal, around 15,000 organisations are currently registered under the FCRA, while the registration of nearly 22,000 organisations has been cancelled and that of around 15,000 more organisations deemed expired.

Union Minister for Parliamentary Affairs Kiren Rijiju said the amendments to the Bill were in the national interest and aimed at preventing the misuse of foreign funds in ways that could “harm national security”. If it is so, the minister must outline cases relating to misuse of foreign funds by NGOs and how they have harmed the country’s security. Transparency and accountability are crucial here.

A key proposed change allows the central government (Ministry of Home Affairs) to appoint a “designated authority” to take over, manage, or dispose of the assets created out of foreign funds by NGOs whose FCRA registration has been suspended, cancelled, or not renewed. The authority will have the power of a civil court and can order the transfer or sale of assets owned by NGOs to either the government or any other body.

Moreover, the amendment casts the net wider while defining the ‘key functionary’ of an NGO. It goes beyond office bearers and directors to include trustees, partners, the karta of a Hindu undivided family, governing body members or anyone controlling or managing the organisation and makes them liable for FCRA offences unless they can prove otherwise. Expanding liability to include so many ‘key functionaries’ introduces a presumption of culpability unless proven otherwise.

The Bill, if passed, has wide ramifications. If an organisation loses its FCRA licence, the designated authority can seize the assets of that organisation and use them. Hence, effectively, and ironically, the central government grants itself sweeping powers—unjust and unreasonable—to grant the FCRA licence as well as withdraw it and assume control over those organisations.

Critics have raised concerns of blatant abuse of the legislation and undue interference in the internal management and service mission of these organisations. Minority institutions, particularly Christian organisations, are likely to be impacted the most given the vast number of educational institutions, hospitals, churches and social outreach centres that they manage.

The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of India (CBCI) acted swiftly, urging the Union home minister and Members of Parliament to reconsider the bill, citing “serious concerns about constitutional balance, civil society freedom and the future of charitable service in India.”

The CBCI has expressed fears that if registration is cancelled and foreign funds and assets vest in the designated authority, it could penalise organisations unfairly. It called for wider consultation and clear safeguards to uphold due process and judicial oversight.

Condemning the amendment bill, the All-India Christian Council alleges the Bill appears a ploy to take over properties and assets run by Christian institutions.

The larger consequence is the human impact of the proposed amendments. When charitable organisations are constrained, the greatest impact is borne not by the organisations but by the beneficiaries who depend on them, not least the poor, the marginalised communities, Dalits and tribals.

Congress MP Shashi Tharoor, who described the Bill as “truly pervasive”, has called for resisting it through legal means, demanding at minimum that it be referred to a select committee for further scrutiny.

In the interests of safeguarding civil society and protecting the autonomy of charitable, educational and religious institutions, it is necessary that an independent appellate authority be set up to ensure impartial adjudication. Will the government pay heed?

(The writer is a Bengaluru- based independent journalist)

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.