The FCRA Bill needs scrutiny, not speed

While the Govt is justified in preventing the misuse of foreign contributions, the Opposition’s concerns cannot be summarily dismissed

When Parliament takes up the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2026 on August 12, it will bring to a head one of the most contentious bills in recent times. Introduced in the Lok Sabha on March 25, it has produced a rare alignment of opposition parties, church bodies, a Northeastern Chief Minister and members of the US Congress, all asking the government to pause.

At its core, the Bill empowers a new “Designated Authority” to take over, manage and eventually dispose of the assets of any organisation whose FCRA registration is cancelled, surrendered or allowed to lapse. Schools, hospitals and welfare centres built over decades with legitimate foreign money could pass into government hands if a licence is simply not renewed, even where no wrongdoing is established. It also bars foreign funds from financing undefined “proselytisation”, though the government says judicial appeal against the Authority’s orders remains open.

India’s FCRA portal shows barely 14,449 active certificates today, against over 22,000 cancelled and 15,000-plus lapsed. Christian organisations hold about 12 percent of licences but receive roughly 60 percent of regulated foreign funds - disproportionately exposed.

Mizoram Chief Minister Lalduhoma travelled to Delhi with the Mizoram Kohhran Hruaitu Committee and the Council of Churches in Mizoram, which has called an August 11 protest, to hand Shah a memorandum demanding referral to a Joint Parliamentary Committee. The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of India held a national prayer day before the session began; the All India Christian Council has accused the government of engineering a legal takeover of Christian institutions. Congress MP Shashi Tharoor calls the Bill a recasting of civil society as a security threat; Rahul Gandhi’s charge that only the RSS would escape scrutiny has been denied as fabricated; and Congress, the Trinamool Congress and NCP (Sharad Pawar) have all demanded withdrawal or committee review.

The government’s underlying concern is not baseless. Genuine misuse of foreign funds is a documented problem, and the FATF’s 2024 review of India did flag real gaps in non-profit oversight. Shah has already conceded ground, assuring the Mizoram delegation the law will not apply retrospectively. But that addresses only timing, not the deeper objection: open-ended, discretionary control over accumulated assets is disproportionate even for a straightforward, good-faith non-renewal. The way forward lies close to what the FATF itself recommended: targeted, risk-based scrutiny, not blanket vesting powers. The government should accept the JPC referral it has so far resisted, define “proselytisation” precisely instead of leaving it to local discretion, and build in a time-bound, genuinely judicial review before any asset is touched - distinguishing organisations that violated the law from those that simply wind down. Anything less will keep confirming the fear driving these protests: that this Bill regulates money but confiscates trust.