The Modi government has always had a bone to pick with the civil society organisations. So, it came as no surprise when it sought to push the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill 2026 in Parliament. But possibly it had not reckoned with the strong protests from the Opposition and muted disapproval of some of its allies. The bill had to be referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) – a climbdown for a government, which has been accused of breaking up parties to manage a majority in Parliament.
In 2020, the government got amendments to the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA) passed that barred a registered body from passing funds to another, even one registered under the same act and cut the share of foreign funds that could be spent on administration from half to a fifth, among other restrictions. The latest bill now proposes to go further still, by taking over the assets that the money built, even on the mere lapse of a certificate.
Under the bill, an organisation that receives a donation can lose its registration not only when the government cancels it, but also when a renewal is refused, not applied for or not granted before the old certificate runs out. As soon as this happens, the organisation’s foreign funds and what was built with them will pass to a government-designated authority automatically. The property returns only if the organisation re-registers within a period the government has yet to specify, failing which it is lost for good. According to the bill, a building put up only partly with foreign money will be taken over in full. The organisation must then apply to get back the share not paid for with foreign money. The bill does allow for an appeal to a district judge, but only against what the authority does with the property later. The refusal to renew cannot be appealed against, and the organisation will not be entitled to be heard before the refusal is made.
Using opaque reasons
Critics sum this up by observing that, in essence, because the authority acts on the Centre’s instructions, the Centre can use opaque reasons to withdraw a licence, take over the property, and then direct the body now holding it. It is not surprising that minority religious institutions have been the most alarmed. This is true of Christian organisations, which run thousands of schools, colleges and hospitals built and sustained with money from churches and congregations abroad. Hundreds marched in Aizawl, Mizoram, under a newly formed Council of Churches; organisations in Keralam have objected to the bill; Nagaland’s chief minister wrote to Home Minister Amit Shah seeking a parliamentary review; and the Tamil Nadu assembly has also unanimously resolved that the Centre should withdraw the bill.
Adding to the government’s embarrassment was US congressman Riley Moore of West Virginia, who stated his opposition to the law, alleging that it would permit the government to take over churches and religious charities. “This is a clear attack against Christians,” he said. “If this bill proceeds in this way, it would be a point of major concern in our bilateral relationship with India”.
Amit Shah had to assure church leaders that the bill would not apply retrospectively, but the text of his own bill says otherwise. A hospital built decades ago can still be taken over today because a certificate has been allowed to lapse.
The first indication of the government’s softening of stance on the FCRA Bill emerged on 9 August, when several Christian organisations launched co-ordinated appeals on YouTube, Facebook and WhatsApp, urging the Centre to either refer the bill to a JPC or withdraw it altogether. The appeals were seen as an attempt to offer the government an honourable way to step back from pushing the legislation through Parliament. “Legislation with consequences of this nature deserves careful examination, meaningful consultation and the fullest parliamentary scrutiny,” said Vijayesh Lal, general secretary, Evangelical Fellowship of India.
All eyes are now on how the JPC, to which the bill has been sent, would handle the issue. It could redraft the bill to provide organisations with an opportunity to be heard before renewal is refused, as well as a right to appeal against such a refusal, among other changes that would make the regulation fair and transparent. But given the brute majority that the BJP and its allies are likely to have in the committee, the Opposition has a tough task on its hands.