Shashi Tharoor alleges the FCRA Amendment Bill 2026 gives the government greater control over NGOs and foreign funds.
The Congress MP raises concerns over proposed asset control powers, FCRA registration and compliance rules.
Tharoor urges parliamentary scrutiny of the Bill through a Select Committee review.
Congress MP Shashi Tharoor has alleged that the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2026, would give the government wider powers over non-profit organisations, including control over foreign funds and institutional assets. The Bill, reintroduced in the Lok Sabha during the Monsoon Session after being withdrawn in April, has drawn criticism from Tharoor over what he described as an expansion of executive authority over civil society institutions.
The proposed legislation seeks to amend the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA), which governs the receipt and use of foreign contributions by organisations in India. While the government has framed the amendments as measures to improve transparency and regulatory oversight, Tharoor has argued that the changes could increase executive control over charities, think tanks, healthcare institutions and other organisations dependent on foreign funding for social welfare activities.
Writing in The Indian Express, Tharoor said the Bill “fundamentally rewrites the relationship between the Indian state and civil society”. He alleged that non-profit organisations and independent institutions were increasingly being treated as sources of “foreign manipulation” rather than development partners.
In his article, the Congress MP referred to earlier FCRA measures, including restrictions on sub-granting to grassroots organisations, limits on administrative expenditure and the requirement for foreign contributions to be received through a designated bank branch in New Delhi. He claimed these measures had contributed to an 87 per cent decline in foreign funding, alleging that several organisations were forced to shut down.
Tharoor flags proposed asset control mechanism
Tharoor’s main concern is a proposed mechanism under which, he says, a Designated Authority could take control of an organisation’s foreign funds and properties if its FCRA registration is suspended, cancelled or denied renewal.
According to Tharoor’s interpretation of the Bill, the authority would have powers to seize, manage and eventually sell such assets, with proceeds transferred to the Consolidated Fund of India, even where only a portion of the asset was funded through foreign contributions.
He also raised concerns over the proposed “deemed cessation” provision, under which an organisation’s registration would automatically end if it fails to submit its renewal application within the prescribed period or if renewal is rejected by the Ministry of Home Affairs.
Tharoor said such provisions could create uncertainty for organisations involved in long-term healthcare, education and welfare projects. He argued that allowing the government to prescribe rigid timelines for receiving and utilising funds could affect institutions managing infrastructure projects, emergency reserves and long-term programmes.
Kerala institutions and constitutional concerns
Using Kerala as an example, Tharoor referred to Christian-run charitable trusts, hospitals, educational institutions, medical colleges and welfare organisations that have provided healthcare and social services across communities for well over a century.
He said these institutions often depend on a combination of domestic contributions, service fees and foreign grants to maintain medical equipment, provide affordable treatment and support educational scholarships.
Tharoor argued that linking FCRA decisions directly to control over land and buildings could create serious challenges for such institutions. He said a suspension or cancellation of registration could force organisations to seek urgent legal protection while defending their status before the Ministry of Home Affairs.
Tharoor said the Bill could face constitutional scrutiny under Article 300A, which protects the right to property, and Article 14, which guarantees equality before law. He also referred to Articles 25 and 26, which protect freedom of religion and the right of religious denominations to establish and manage their institutions and properties.
Tharoor argued that taking control of assets created through a combination of domestic and foreign resources could raise questions under the right to property. He also alleged that requiring central government approval before investigations could result in selective enforcement, with some organisations facing stricter scrutiny than others.
The Congress MP said such measures could indirectly affect constitutional protections related to religious freedom and the right of denominations to manage their institutions, without formally removing those rights.
Tharoor seeks Select Committee scrutiny
In his article for The Indian Express, Tharoor said organisations affected by suspension or cancellation of FCRA registration would have limited immediate remedies and could be forced into lengthy legal battles before high courts or the Supreme Court.
“It is a profound injustice to subject institutions that have devoted generations to India’s development, education, and healthcare, to such punitive statutory mechanisms,” he wrote.
Tharoor urged the Opposition to seek a referral of the Bill to a Select Committee for clause-by-clause examination, public consultation and discussions with civil society stakeholders when the legislation comes up in Parliament.
He called for the Bill to be referred to a Select Committee for clause-by-clause scrutiny, public consultation and discussions with civil society stakeholders.
