Targeting NGOs, hurting the poor: The fallout of the new FCRA amendment

By Fr Cedric Prakash SJ 

The ruling regime continues to pursue its anti-people agenda in a systematic yet manipulative manner. The latest example is the insensitive and draconian proposed amendments to the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA). On 25 March 2026, the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2026, was introduced in the Lok Sabha by Minister of State for Home Affairs Nityanand Rai. 

According to the government, the Bill seeks to bridge legal gaps in the management of assets created through foreign funds and streamline the accountability of NGO functionaries. These may appear to be innocuous objectives, but a closer examination of the Bill's provisions reveals something far more sinister. It threatens to sound the death knell for humanitarian and developmental work that largely benefits the poor, the marginalised, and other vulnerable sections of Indian society. The amendment is clearly designed to hurt those who can least afford it.

The most contentious provision in the Bill is the creation of a new "Designated Authority" to be notified by the Central Government. This authority would be empowered to take provisional or permanent control of foreign contributions and assets—including schools, hospitals, community centres, hostels, and other infrastructure created wholly or partly through foreign funding—in cases where an organisation's FCRA registration is cancelled, surrendered, allowed to lapse, or not renewed.

The proposed authority would supervise, manage, or dispose of these assets. Proceeds from any sale could be credited to the Consolidated Fund of India and used for "public purposes," including transfer to government departments or agencies. If an organisation's registration is later restored, any unutilised funds and assets would theoretically be returned. In the meantime, however, affected organisations and their key functionaries would be required to provide complete access to records and maintain assets under the authority's supervision.

Several other provisions in the Bill are equally alarming. The definition of "key functionary" has been significantly expanded to include directors, partners, trustees, the karta of a Hindu Undivided Family, office-bearers of societies, trusts and trade unions, and virtually any person exercising managerial control. These individuals could be held personally liable for offences unless they can prove lack of knowledge or due diligence.

The Bill also mandates that any law enforcement agency or state government must obtain prior approval from the Central Government before initiating investigations into FCRA-related complaints. It introduces fixed timelines for the receipt and utilisation of foreign funds under prior permission, provides for the automatic cessation of registration upon expiry or non-renewal, and lays down new rules governing asset management during periods of suspension. While the Bill proposes reducing the maximum imprisonment for FCRA violations from five years to one year, this apparent concession is overshadowed by the sweeping powers it grants the executive.

Not surprisingly, the Bill has generated widespread concern among intellectuals, academics, activists, NGO leaders, human rights defenders, religious leaders, and members of civil society. Political parties across the opposition spectrum have united in demanding that the Bill be withdrawn in its entirety. Numerous editorials, opinion pieces, and statements from civil society organisations have highlighted the dangers inherent in the proposed amendments. Representations expressing legitimate concerns have also been submitted to the government.

A few days ago, sections of the Indian media reported comments by US Senator James Risch, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He observed that India's Foreign Contribution Regulation Act imposes "onerous and opaque constraints" on non-governmental organisations and groups receiving foreign funding, making their day-to-day operations nearly impossible. Concerns about the proposed amendments have been voiced by lawmakers from both major political parties in the United States.

There are several compelling reasons why the Bill should be withdrawn immediately and unconditionally.

First, the existing FCRA framework, particularly since 2014, is already among the most stringent regulatory systems governing foreign contributions. It contains extensive checks, balances, and oversight mechanisms.

Second, over the past decade, the government has systematically suspended, cancelled, or refused to renew the FCRA registrations of numerous NGOs, many of which have rendered outstanding service to the nation. A significant number of these organisations belong to minority communities.

Third, the new provisions threaten to choke vital work being carried out for the common good. NGOs supported through foreign contributions play an indispensable role in healthcare, education, rural development, agricultural support, community empowerment, women's advancement, child protection, anti-trafficking initiatives, environmental conservation, disaster response, rehabilitation, livelihood generation, housing for the urban poor, and research.

The greatest victims of these measures will be the millions of beneficiaries who depend on such interventions—the poor and marginalised, victims of natural disasters, persons with disabilities, destitute individuals, and other vulnerable groups. Through the work of NGOs, many of these people are able to live with greater dignity, security, and opportunity, in keeping with the values and principles enshrined in the Constitution of India.

The government's position appears to be that if an organisation commits an FCRA violation today, all assets acquired or developed through foreign contributions over many years can be taken over by the state. Such a proposition is wholly unacceptable. It is also arguably mala fide and unconstitutional.

Article 300A of the Constitution, introduced through the 44th Constitutional Amendment in 1978, states: "No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law." While the right to property is no longer a fundamental right, it remains a constitutional and legal right. The state may acquire property only through a valid law, for a legitimate public purpose, and with appropriate safeguards. The proposed amendment appears to create a pathway for the takeover of assets belonging to NGOs, including hospitals, schools, hostels, and community centres. Many believe that such provisions disproportionately target institutions run by minorities.

On 1 April, opposition Members of Parliament staged a united protest at Parliament's Makar Dwar, demanding the withdrawal of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2026. They accused the government of tightening its grip on NGOs and targeting minority institutions. The Bill was described as draconian and as an attempt to confer sweeping executive powers that could result in arbitrary action.

The Lok Sabha had to be adjourned that day amid opposition demands for the withdrawal of the Bill. Responding to the criticism, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju defended the legislation, arguing that it was intended to regulate foreign funding in the national interest and was not directed against any religion or community. He subsequently announced that the Bill would not be taken up for discussion on that day.

However, postponement is not withdrawal. The government has not abandoned the Bill. The pause appears to be a temporary tactical retreat, allowing tempers to cool before the legislation is reintroduced during the Monsoon Session of Parliament, scheduled to begin on 21 July.

The FCRA has increasingly become a weapon in the hands of the ruling establishment. Through these amendments, the government appears determined to curb charitable and humanitarian initiatives, shrink the already limited democratic space available to civil society, and weaken the constitutional empowerment of citizens. Ultimately, the gravest consequences will be borne by the poor and vulnerable. That is why this amendment is not merely an attack on NGOs; it is an attack on those whom these organisations serve.

The people of India must take a stand now and demand the complete withdrawal of this draconian Bill.

---

Fr Cedric Prakash SJ is a renowned human rights, reconciliation and peace activist and writer