The Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2026 was introduced in the Lok Sabha on 25 March 2026, while the revised FCRA Rules, 2026 were notified on 22 June 2026 and are in force. The parliamentary committee has sought public feedback on the changes and modifications, but this is the 4th amendment since the Modi-led BJP government came to power in 2014.
It is perhaps the most frequent amendment to any act within a short period of time. Therefore, it raises concern, especially for those who are keen on continuous amendments and whose interests it serves. Is it done with evidence-based policy decisions or backed by bias and prejudice against NGOs?
Highly regulated Social Sector Vs. Non-regularised Political Donation
On donations and contributions, there are two types of donations regulated by the Union government. One, social sector donations operated mostly by NGOs registered as societies, trusts, and non-profit companies. Second, political donations to political parties.
Both entities, NGOs and political parties, work for the betterment of society and the nation. In terms of operation, the NGO sector has national, regional and local presence, while political parties are mainly national and regional in their operation.
However, to their surprise, NGOs are more accountable and have to follow strict rules despite their purpose, and their donor names are open, while political donations are secretive in nature.
The difference is that NGOs can receive foreign contributions, but political parties have no provision for foreign contributions except NRIs and foreign companies that are registered in India.
Recently, BBC News has exposed a more than 1700 Cr donation to six registered unrecognised political parties in 2023-24, which is larger than the Indian National Congress. Surprisingly, they fielded only 15 candidates, and nobody won the election.
The problem is clear here that the political party which received such a large donation does not even their office, but such political parties have no accountability. Who contributed and for what purposes? And who knows whether the funding was for political purpose for other purposes?
Provision of the Seizure of Assets is Ill Conceived and Arbitrary in Nature
With the FCRA Amendment in 2020, foreign contributions to the NGOs are highly regulated centrally via an SBI branch in New Delhi. What is the further need to bring a provision to constitute a designated authority and to seize (take care of) assets created under the foreign contribution?
There are two problems here: first, both the granter of FCRA registration and the punishment authority are the same government machinery. Second, an NGO operates on both foreign and national grants, and even if FCRA is cancelled, the same may operate through other donations.
As per the provision, the Ministry of Home Affairs is the authority to decide the eligibility for FCRA for any NGOs. Now they will decide the fate of FCRA through administrative procedure, and the same government authority will decide the seizure of the assets, although there is scope to challenge the decision in the court of law. This act involves a conflict of interest and is against the constitutional principle of separation of the executive and judiciary.
The second problem is that if the FCRA is cancelled, the asset created under FCRA funding will be seized. This provision is arbitrary and ill-conceived because an NGO may have various funding sources. If one source of funding is cancelled/closed down, does it mean the NGO is closed down? In simple logic, to be eligible for FCRA, an NGO should be operational for at least three years from its registration.
It means that before the eligibility for FCRA, an NGO was operational with other funding and therefore, even after its cancellation, the NGO will not cease to function. Therefore, capturing the assets of an NGO after the cancellation of FCRA is logically ill-conceived and shows the arbitrariness of the government.
Is the Right Based Social Work a Soft Target?
Looking into the continuous amendments and with the absence of clear evidence against the action, it creates a doubt that the social and development sector is a soft target for the government. The doubt increases where there is no action against the clear evidence of unanimous political donations to unrecognised political parties in Gujarat.
The idea and execution of measures—cancellation of FCRA and seizure of assets—further create doubt. The idea of seizure of assets neglects that NGOs too have other funding sources, and after the cancellation of FCRA, it does not cease to function.
Besides, executive authority is both the granter of FCRA as well as acts as judge to decide the seizure of assets. That goes against the constitutional principle of the separation of the executive and judiciary.
Therefore, it is believed that the social and development sector is a soft target for their rights-based, anti-caste, women empowerment work in remote to remotest areas.
Otherwise, the same government goes against the Supreme Court judgment and brings an amendment to the Mines and Mineral Development Act 2026 and foregoes the tax collection rights from mining companies in prorata-basis with the logic to help the medium mining companies.
There is also clear evidence of the huge amount of political donations to registered unrecognised political parties, but that is not a concern. On the other hand, foreign contributions to the social and development sector organisations are a big concern for the government.
In the past, a few international organisations have also been the target of the government for their rights-based work. Therefore, the reason behind the amendment is not established, nor has it been debated and discussed sufficiently.
Thus, it is not an evidence-based policy decision but a prejudice against social sector actors for right based social work. If the objective is to regularise the contribution/donation, why only social sector contributions and not political contributions?
About The Author
Leave a Reply