Editorial
Why the proposed Amendment to the FCRA is matter of concern
Opinion | Editorial | John S. Shilshi | 16-Aug-2026
The Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2026 has created a sense fear among the Charitable and Social organisations. It is widely suspected that the bill was intended to target minority faith-based NGOs working for the poorest of the poor in this country, a service which the Sang Parivar is said to have been unhappy with. Unhappy with service to humanity? Unbelievable. On the other hand, there are others who felt that the apprehension was nothing sort of pressing the panic button unnecessarily. The majority, including some among Christians saw the expression of fear as routine, since it is common in India to oppose any legislation, the government proposes. But when one examines the contents of the proposed bill, the fear and apprehensions are not entirely misplaced. Some of the key features clearly points towards an intention which is not very noble, something that democratic India would not normally be proud of owning it. Because the ulterior is motive quite glaringly visible.
The most dangerous provision of the Bill is the proposal for creation of a designated authority with powers to seize control of physical and soft assets created with foreign contributions the moment an organisation’s registration is cancelled, surrendered, allowed to expire, or simply not renewed. Such a measure is nothing less than expropriation without the safeguards of due process. It violates the principles of natural justice and places the property rights of citizens at the mercy of administrative discretion. No society should tolerate a system where a government authority is given such sweeping power to permanently take over institutions built by the faith-based charitable organisation as it amounts to direct attack on minority communities.
Equally alarming is the breadth of discretion granted to officials. The Bill and the accompanying rules allow authorities to decide what constitutes acceptable activity, to impose geographic limits, to demand purpose specific registrations for every category of work, and to cancel registration if foreign contributions fall below an arbitrary threshold. Organisations working across several states must obtain separate registrations, multiplying costs and administrative burdens. Social media accounts and publications must be disclosed, and any expression judged political can invite severe penalties. The inclusion of the undefined term proselytization opens the door to selective interpretation and harassment of Christian community. This vagueness is not accidental; it is a tool of control which is done with a sinister intent.
One cannot deny that it is the duty of the State to prevent misuse of funds. However, it needs mentioning that the existing law, in the form of the principal foreign Contribution Regulation Act, 2010, already provides sections for investigation, audit, and prosecution. Moreover, since 2014, the principal act has been amended three times – in 2026, 2018, and 2020, and in each of these amendments, the intention to put a stranglehold on the faith-based organisation have been adequately evident. To summarise them, these amendments had introduced the need to disclose how the fund received has been use, mandated the district authority to call for records, and mandatory opening of account in a centralised bank, namely the State Bank of India in Delhi’s Parliament Street branch. Many considered the last condition as people-unfriendly because it amounts to increasing the burden of the user.
The new Bill goes far beyond those fears. It creates a climate of permanent insecurity in which institutions must live in fear of sudden cancellation and seizure. Article 25 guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practise, and propagate religion. Article 30 protects the right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions. Article 19 and Article 21 safeguard association, expression, and the right to livelihood that flows from the ability to carry on charitable work. The Bill places all these rights in jeopardy by subjecting them to the unbridled will of the executive - in this case, by the proposed designated authority.
The Catholic church, which is one of the major communities with charitable and social organisations serving the citizens would be hit hard should this bill become and Act. Considerable amount of soft assets will be freeze so also, many physical assets taken over. The question is, do the Church has the determination to stand up against the proposed amendment as a united body? Not at least to our knowledge so far. Instead, there appears to be a lurking misconception that Bishops who choose to join any united democratic protest against the bill was likely to be punished by the government through selective cancellation of their FCRA registrations. This is bizarre. Because a united stand perhaps is the only chance in hand to compel the government to rethink on the amendment.