Skip to main content

NGO "officers" are public servants in India under Lokpal Act, warns report marked "for private circulation"

By A Representative
A new report by AccountAid, an organization in the job of closely watching developments around non-government organizations (NGOs) in India, has caused a flutter among top activists of the country. It has “discovered” that the Lokpal Act “covers” most of  the NGOs, saying that their officers are "public servants".
AccountAid, after covering different topics related to NGO regulation or accounting, posts or emails these to about 2,000 persons in NGOs, agencies and audit firms for further discussions.
The report, which is marked “for private circulation”, says that these officers “must declare their wealth annually”, like any other public servants need to, and the Lokpal can “look into” complaints received against them. The Act was passed in 2013, when the UPA was in power.
It says, provisions the Act “apply” to officers of three kinds of NGOs, and they would all be “treated as public servants… These are those established by the Central Government, also called ‘Government NGOs (or GONGOs); those which receive Central Government grants exceeding Rs. 1 crore annually; and those receiving donations of more than Rs 10 lakh annually from “foreign sources.”
Especially focusing on NGOs receiving funds under the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) – whether they are societies, trusts and association of persons – the report says, they would be covered under the Lokpal Act, and it does not matter whether “the NGO is registered under FCRA or has only received prior-permission.”
“In fact, it doesn’t even matter if the NGO has received foreign donation without FCRA permission. The Lokpal Act will still be applicable”, the report says, adding, it would be applicable to all types of societies, “registered or unregistered”, and “charitable, literary or scientific”.
“Special types of societies, such as cooperative societies would get covered if they are receiving donations from a foreign source”, the report says, adding, trusts, formed by registration of a trust deed under Registration Act, 1908, including in states, such as Gujarat and Maharashtra, where they are registered under special laws, “would also be covered.”
Significantly, the report says, non-profit companies – which NGOs are increasingly moving to following the recent FCRA clampdown – “are a glaring, but clear omission.” It adds, “This means sec. 25 or sec. 8 companies getting foreign donations are not covered... Therefore, directors and other officers of such companies do not have to comply with Lokpal Act because of this clause.”
Interestingly, the report says, “The Lokpal Act does not mention the term ‘foreign contribution’ at all. Instead, it refers to donations from a foreign source’, as defined in FCRA, 2010.”
It notes, “Foreign contribution covers ‘donation, delivery or transfer’ of money and material from source are to be considered for Lokpal Act”, though adding, “Loans from a foreign source or subscription to share capital of a non-profit company are not donations and will not be considered for this.”
For NGOs, the report underlines, ‘officers’ of all categories are covered. “Many NGOs have an accounts officer” and he/she would be “treated as a public servant” as the Lokpal Act's provision on 'officer' could be “interpreted as indicating a group of people who manage or control the organization”, it says.
“Clerical or administrative work is covered under this, where discretion or judgement do not play a significant role”, the report says, adding, “Clearly this is a fairly wide definition, and includes governing board members, as well as employees forming part of executive management.”
Then, the report says, “Chief functionaries and people designated as CEO, CFO, COO would be covered. People designated as directors could also be covered. In case of trusts, all trustees would get covered, in addition to senior management of the trust.”
As for CFOs who have a consultancy contract with NGOs, the report says, “In such cases, one should look at the substance of the relationship. If the CFO has executive powers, then he/she would be treated as an officer.”

Comments

TRENDING

How strategic is India's commercial expansion in the Mediterranean?

By Vijay Prashad  On 26 October 2026, Greece’s foreign minister George Gerapetritis stood at the United Nations headquarters and rejected the maritime agreement between Turkey and Libya. Gerapetritis spoke on behalf of Greece of course, but also Bahrain, Cyprus, Egypt, the European Union, and the United Arab Emirates. Five days later, the Indian frigate INS Trishul entered Souda Bay in Crete as part of activities with the US Navy installation (Naval Support Activity) and with the NATO Maritime Interdiction Operational Training Centre. The sequence illuminates a developing strategic geography: India’s naval reach, its confrontation with Pakistan’s new Turkish partner, and its ambition to connect Indian capital to European markets increasingly converge in the eastern Mediterranean.

India among targets as China-linked hackers 'exploit' VPNs, firewalls

Counterview News   Cyberattackers grew faster and harder to detect in 2025, increasingly slipping through trusted systems rather than breaking in with obvious malware, claims U.S.-based  cybersecurity technology company CrowdStrike's 2026 Global Threat Report . The report says adversaries "grew more evasive than ever before," exploiting trust in supply chain partners, legitimate software, internal systems and employees. CrowdStrike now tracks 281 adversaries after naming 24 new ones in 2025, plus 150 activity clusters and emerging threat groups.

Letter to Modi seeks cancellation of "coercive" anti-NGO order on foreign funding rules

By A Representative  Around 70 civil rights organizations have come together to strategize “a collective response to the stifling of civil society space” in the wake of the recent Government of India clampdown on NGOs, telling Prime Minister Narendra Modi that government steps are “coercive” in nature, are “without reasonable cause or due process”, and seek to “cripple” the ability of NGOs to “carry on their legitimate and sanctioned work.”