The FCRA Debate: Regulation is Necessary, But It Must Not Become Excessive Control

Idioms like ‘Ungliyon par nachana’, ‘muththi mein karna’ come to my mind whenever measures like the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) —FCRA—Amendment Bill, 2026 and Freedom of Religion Acts (FRA) are framed to bring someone completely under control, win them over, or trick them into doing what those in power want. These idioms are the much-needed tools when one’s only objective is to win elections and remain in power. Having captured near-complete control over north, central and east India, many maneuverings have been carried out in the last 12-13 years to win over voters in southern India, but electoral success has somehow eluded them. Hence, a new strategy is being introduced to make someone dance to their tunes. It has worked so far. Inside and outside Parliament, organisations from every part of India, media houses, influencers, opinion-makers, individuals, institutions, including forces from outside India, have expressed fear of losing their assets. They were seen kneeling before power with folded hands—after all, the target this time is the “praying community”.

Both the FCRA Amendment Bill, 2026 and the FRA aim to legitimise the false allegation of forced conversions. Accusers have yet to provide evidence by producing forcefully converted people or publishing a list of such individuals. Despite a directive from the Supreme Court, then Chief Justice of India Justice Chandrachud asked both the Union government and eight state governments to submit an action-taken report against those indulging in forced conversions on September 1, 2022. None of these governments have submitted a list so far, making it abundantly clear that no forced conversions are taking place in India.

These false accusations for long have resulted in violent attacks against Christians across the country and now, Christian institutions will face similar challenges, including a complete takeover of the institutions. United Christian Forum data shows a deeply disturbing consistent long-term rise in reported incidents: from 127 in 2014 to a peak of 834 in both 2024 and 2025. Between January and July 2026, 342 incidents involving violence, intimidation or harassment against Christians were reported in just 212 days across 22 states and union territories.

Under Section 16A in the proposed amendment, the Central government has the power to automatically take over, manage, or dispose of assets through a designated authority created with foreign funds when a non-governmental organisation’s (NGO’s) FCRA registration is suspended, cancelled, or not renewed. Many Christian organisations have been wrongly accused of religious conversion, resulting in their FCRA not being renewed or cancelled. While limited information is provided at the time of such cancellations or non-renewals, the narrative that is being built up, even by union ministers, makes this a very credible fear among Christians.

This attempt to take over Christian properties grossly violates the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution, especially since it occurs without prior judicial scrutiny, independent adjudication, or any meaningful procedural safeguards.

The “praying community” is not against the authorities framing laws to regulate foreign money entering the country. No responsible person objects audited accounts, protection against money laundering, or safeguards against foreign interference in our country’s national sovereignty.The community is capable of funding its own work with local funds. But it may have built a charitable hospital through foreign donations received 25 years ago and since then, it has become financially self-sufficient and wishes to leave the FCRA regime. The law requires the NGO in question to continue renewing its registration even if it no longer wishes to receive foreign funds.

More complications arise when dealing with mixed-funded properties. Suppose a charitable hospital costing Rs 20 crore was developed with Rs 5 crore in overseas donations, Rs 10 crore from Indian donors and Rs 5 crore borrowed from an Indian bank. What is the foreign-funded asset? Which floor is the foreign contribution on? Which room belongs to the Indian donors? Who owns the appreciation in land value after 25 years?

The proposed powers for the Central government are overreaching. While law enforcement agencies and state governments are required to seek prior approval, this effectively equips the Central government with gatekeeping powers. The threshold decision on whether an enquiry may even begin will rest with the Central government, which weakens the possibility of independent oversight and makes the regulatory structure more subject to misuse. If norms are violated and suspension occurs, the bank account and assets will become unusable. Permission to use up to 25 per cent of the funds to keep the organisation running is rarely granted. Even a suspension order while an inquiry is underway leaves the organisation crippled and the beneficiaries without access to critical services.

In the proposed amendment, the government wants to prescribe a timeframe within which funds approved under prior permission must be spent. If they are not spent in this time for even valid reasons, the permission will lapse, the amount will no longer be available. This introduces a new level of rigidity.

The definition of “functionary” encompasses a larger group of individuals covering directors, partners, trustees, office-bearers of societies, trusts and trade unions, members of Hindu undivided families in some settings and any person exercising effective control over the organisation’s management and affairs. This results in direct personal liability on these individuals for organisational infractions, significantly raising personal accountability risks. When charitable institutions are constrained, the greatest impact is borne by the millions of beneficiaries who depend on them.

India’s development has always been a shared partnership between the state and civil society. Regulation is necessary, but it must not become excessive control or result in unintended expropriation.

In this context, it is a welcome decision by the Central government to refer the bill to a joint parliamentary committee, but the bill must not only be examined in detail, the entire Act needs to be redrafted to give affected organisations a chance to be heard before renewal is refused and a right to appeal against such a refusal, among other changes that would make the regulation fair and transparent.

It is imperative to ensure that administrative lapses do not result in disproportionate penalties, such as asset seizure and to implement clear safeguards to uphold due process and judicial oversight, thereby protecting the autonomy of charitable, educational and faith-based institutions. Steps should be taken to promote a regulatory framework based on proportionality and trust. The establishment of an independent appellate authority is essential to ensure impartial adjudication and effective redressal of grievances.

(Views expressed are personal)

A.C. Michael is the Founder-National Coordinator of United Christian Forum. He is president of the Catholic Association of Archdiocese of Delhi & Delhi State President of the All India Catholic Union