Fear of the foreign: On the FCRA amendments
The Centre wants to restrict foreign contributions to individuals and organisations in India, but intends to do so in a selective and opaque manner. A fresh set of amendments to the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, or FCRA, now temporarily stalled due to protests, is an attempt by the Centre to empower itself to arbitrarily take control of assets owned by recipients of foreign contributions. Introduced in the Lok Sabha on March 25, 2026, the Bill to amend the FCRA proposes a comprehensive statutory framework for a new “designated authority” to seize, manage, and dispose of assets of organisations that lose their FCRA licence. Cloaked in the rhetoric of national security and foreign interventions, the move smacks of bad faith, or even worse, a devious scheme to snatch assets built through legal means. Once an FCRA registration ceases to exist, the designated authority can take control of assets built using foreign funds — schools, hospitals, places of worship — and use them. This process is proposed to be automatic and instantaneous upon the discontinuation of the FCRA status, requiring no judicial determination or adjudicatory process. In effect, the Centre that grants FCRA permission can decide to withdraw that permission, and benefit from its own decision. This is unfair in both principle and procedure, and Christian groups that run numerous health and educational institutions are particularly concerned, given that they may have received contributions from abroad
The Bill has been postponed for now, but the government has no plans to abandon it. The FCRA was first enacted in 1976, and reenacted in 2010 during the UPA regime and amended in 2020 under Narendra Modi — progressively tightening the receipt and use of foreign funds. It is notable that state policy seeks foreign money in a range of domains — from infrastructure to technology, and entertainment to real estate. Regulatory regimes can be credible only when they are transparent and even-handed. That is not the case with the FCRA restrictions. Rajya Sabha MP John Brittas said his parliamentary questions regarding FCRA cancellations, non-renewals, and related data had been disallowed since 2024. That leaves one with the reasonable assumption that the government allows only some to receive foreign funds. That built-in favouritism apart, the design of the proposed legislation violates the principles of natural justice. The assets built legally with foreign funds before an organisation loses its FCRA clearance cannot justly be subject to seizure under any subsequent regulatory action. The Centre must rethink its approach on this issue and ensure that any regulations on foreign funds it introduces are fair, transparent, and steer clear of what exists on the ground.
- 1The proposed FCRA amendments permitting automatic asset seizure without judicial determination upon loss of FCRA status raise significant constitutional and legal concerns. This violates principles of natural justice, which mandate fair hearing and due process before deprivation of property. Such arbitrary executive action undermines legal safeguards and could be challenged under Article 300A of the Constitution, protecting property rights.
- 2The FCRA amendments exemplify executive overreach by granting a "designated authority" arbitrary power to seize assets of organisations losing their FCRA licence. This move, stalled due to protests, reflects a governance model lacking transparency and accountability, as evidenced by disallowed parliamentary questions regarding FCRA data. It allows the Centre to selectively control foreign contributions, potentially stifling civil society.
- 3The FCRA amendments pose a severe economic and social threat, particularly to organisations running vital institutions like schools and hospitals built with foreign contributions. Christian groups, heavily reliant on such funds for their extensive social work, are particularly vulnerable to asset seizure. This could cripple social welfare initiatives and deter legitimate foreign funding for developmental projects across India.
- 4The FCRA amendments, framed under "national security and foreign interventions" rhetoric, could negatively impact India's international image and diplomatic relations. While India actively seeks foreign investment in sectors like infrastructure and technology, restricting contributions to NGOs through opaque means signals an inconsistent regulatory environment. This might deter foreign philanthropic organisations and raise concerns among international partners about civil society space.