FCRA Bill referred to JPC: What it proposes and why it is facing opposition

India's government is poised to gain sweeping powers to seize NGO assets,  including schools, hospitals and places of worship,  if an organisation's foreign-funding licence is cancelled or not renewed, under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2026, which has now been pushed toward a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) amid fierce opposition from Congress, TMC, DMK and Christian groups, just a day before Parliament's Monsoon Session is set to end on August 13.

What is FCRA Amendment Bill

Introduced in the Lok Sabha on March 25th by the home ministry, the bill amends the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 which regulates foreign funding of NGOs and associations in India.

The new Amendment creates provision for a "Designated Authority", empowered to take control of an organisation's foreign-funded assets once its FCRA registration is cancelled, surrendered or not renewed. Assets shall vest provisionally in the authority at that point, and permanently if the organisation does not regain registration. The authority may then transfer these assets to a government body, the bill proposes.

Organisations may reclaim assets funded through domestic sources, but only if these can be clearly separated from foreign-funded assets. Among seized assets, places of worship must retain their religious character, as specified in the bill.

The bill also introduces several other changes: it reduces the maximum jail term for FCRA violations from five years to one, and requires state agencies to obtain prior approval from the central government before investigating such violations. Separately, rules notified in June set a new eligibility bar for renewal, requiring NGOs to have utilised at least Rs 10 lakh in foreign contributions over the preceding two years.

Mounting opposition to the Bill

Congress and the DMK have demanded that the bill be withdrawn entirely, while the Trinamool Congress has also opposed it. The Biju Janata Dal (BJD) has instead backed sending it to a joint committee. Mizoram CM Lalduhoma and Christian organisations have met Home Minister Amit Shah over the bill, while DMK MP P Wilson led a delegation of church leaders seeking its withdrawal and the repeal of Section 15 of the existing Act.

A memorandum submitted by the Wilson-led delegation flagged provisions under Section 14B and Chapter IIIA, under which delays or minor technical errors on the FCRA Online Portal could trigger automatic certificate cessation, immediately setting off the provisional, and eventually permanent, vesting of an organisation's assets in the Designated Authority. Critics say this makes asset seizure disproportionate to administrative lapses.

The Council of Churches in Mizoram held a rally in Aizawl on 11 August against the bill, and Nagaland CM Neiphiu Rio also raised concerns.

Opposition parties allege the bill will choke funding for Christian-run NGOs, minority welfare and educational institutions. The government, on the other hand, is maintaining that the legislation is not religion-specific and is aimed solely at regulating foreign contributions.

Some U.S. lawmakers, including Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman James Risch, also raised concerns that the changes could affect Christian organisations and civil society groups. India's external affairs ministry called this an internal legislative matter, and India's ambassador to the U.S., Vinay Mohan Kwatra, said the changes are meant to improve transparency, drawing comparisons with similar foreign-funding laws in the U.S., U.K., Australia, Canada and the E.U.

The FCRA was first enacted in 1976 and later replaced by the FCRA, 2010. A 2020 amendment barred NGOs from transferring foreign funds to each other and required funds to be routed through a designated bank account. Government data show that more than 22,000 FCRA registrations have been cancelled since 2010, with a further 15,000 having lapsed.

How we got here

The FCRA's roots trace back to 1976, when it was first enacted during the Emergency to regulate foreign funding of individuals and organisations in India. It was overhauled in 2010, when the original Act was repealed and replaced with stricter registration and renewal rules, and tightened further in 2020, when an amendment barred NGOs from transferring foreign funds to one another, capped administrative expenses at 20%, and required foreign funds to be routed through a designated bank account with the State Bank of India in New Delhi.

The latest round of changes began on 25 March 2026, when the Home Ministry introduced the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill in the Lok Sabha. This was followed on 22 June by companion FCRA Rules notifying the Rs 10 lakh utilisation threshold for licence renewal. The bill ran into sustained opposition through the monsoon session, culminating on 11 August, when Congress and TMC raised it at a Rajya Sabha Business Advisory Committee meeting demanding its withdrawal, the BJD instead proposed referring it to a joint committee, and the Council of Churches in Mizoram held a rally in Aizawl against it. The following day, 12 August, a motion to refer the bill to a joint parliamentary committee was moved in the Lok Sabha.

What's next

The Lok Sabha has passed a motion to refer the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2026, to a 31-member joint parliamentary committee, 21 MPs from the Lok Sabha, nominated by Speaker Om Birla, and 10 from the Rajya Sabha, nominated by Chairman C P Radhakrishnan.

The committee has been asked to submit its report to the Lok Sabha by the last day of the first week of the Winter Session of Parliament in 2026, giving it time to examine the bill's provisions and consult stakeholders and NGOs before it can be taken up for passage.

The process could extend well beyond that deadline. A similar route was taken with the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024, which was referred to as a JPC and only passed more than a year later, in April 2025.

Withdrawing the bill entirely, as demanded by Congress and the DMK, remains unlikely given the government's majority and its stated intent to proceed with the legislation in some form.