JPC members question Centre on foreign funds, asset takeover provisions in FCRA amendments

At the first meeting of Parliament’s Joint Committee on the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2026, members raised a barrage of questions on the proposed changes, with the thrust of the ruling party MPs’ queries focused on utilisation of foreign contributions and Opposition members questioning provisions dealing with assets when an organisation’s FCRA licence is cancelled.

The Opposition objected to the provision relating to the “designated authority”, which will have a wide ambit of powers. Under the provision, if an organisation’s Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA) certificate is cancelled, surrendered, or lapses automatically, foreign contributions and all assets created from them would vest in a government-appointed “designated authority”, without a prior hearing or judicial determination.

The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), in its submission, said the proposed amendments are aimed at making the use of foreign contributions more transparent and accountable.

Ministry representatives also argued that the provision for a “designated authority” is not new to the law. Under the existing legislation, there is a provision for a “prescribed authority”, which, according to a notification issued on November 5, 2018, is the Additional Chief Secretary or Principal Secretary (Home) of the concerned State or Union Territory.

However, under the current law, there is no deadline for such custodianship, leaving the “prescribed authority” as a “passive custodian” unable to take “substantive decisions on assets”. There is also no standard procedure for taking possession of such assets, maintaining inventories or segregating foreign-contribution assets from domestically funded ones, the MHA said in its submission, according to sources.

Officials further argued that in cases of prolonged custodianship, States may face budgetary and manpower constraints in managing vested institutions such as schools, hospitals and orphanages. The existing law is also silent on the final disposal of assets and the treatment of places of worship, they said.

Several Opposition members, according to sources, including the DMK’s P. Wilson and the Trinamool Congress’ Menaka Guruswamy, argued that deprivation of property cannot be permitted without a prior hearing under Article 300A of the Constitution.

The MHA’s presentation also came under fire for cataloguing foreign contributions received by different religious groups and highlighting that a majority of the funds were received by Christian organisations.

Members questioned the Ministry’s rationale for segregating contributions received under religious heads.

“National security” legislation

The FCRA was enacted in 1976 at the height of Cold War geopolitics, amid deep mistrust of Western influence and heightened sensitivity to threats to India’s sovereignty and democratic institutions.

Prior to 1976, NGOs receiving foreign funds operated under general laws such as the Societies Registration Act, the Trusts Act and the Companies Act, with no centralised mechanism to monitor foreign contributions. Oversight was largely limited to tax and foreign-exchange compliance, which did not address national security concerns.

Citing this backdrop, the MHA said the latest amendment is, at its core, a “national security” legislation.