New Delhi: The proposed Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2026 has triggered a major debate in Parliament, with the government arguing that the changes will improve transparency in foreign funding, while Opposition parties and several church organisations have raised concerns over its possible impact on civil society groups.
The proposed amendments focus on how organisations receiving foreign contributions operate, what happens when their licences are cancelled and how funds and assets acquired through foreign donations are managed.
What is FCRA and why does it matter?
The Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA) regulates the acceptance and use of foreign donations by organisations in India, including NGOs, charitable institutions, educational bodies and research organisations.
Also Read: Parliament Set For Stormy Week As Centre Pushes Key Bills; Oppn Plans Fresh Offensive On Amit Shah, FCRA Bill
Under the existing law, organisations receiving foreign funds must register with the Ministry of Home Affairs, maintain designated bank accounts, follow spending restrictions and submit annual financial reports.
FCRA registration is generally valid for five years and requires renewal. In recent years, several organisations have lost their registrations due to alleged violations of rules.
What changes does the FCRA Amendment Bill propose?
1. New authority to manage NGO assets
One of the biggest proposed changes is the creation of a Designated Authority that can take control of assets linked to foreign contributions when an organisation loses its FCRA registration.
The authority would have powers to manage and potentially dispose of such assets, including property and funds acquired through foreign donations. Opponents argue that this gives excessive power to the government without requiring prior judicial approval.
2. Rules on proselytisation and foreign funding
The proposed changes also include restrictions on organisations involved in “proselytisation” from receiving foreign contributions.
While the government maintains that genuine charitable activities will continue, critics argue that the term lacks a clear definition and could impact legitimate faith-based organisations.
3. Minimum spending requirement
The bill proposes that registered organisations must spend at least ₹10 lakh annually from foreign funds to maintain active registration. Critics say smaller grassroots organisations working in rural areas could face difficulties meeting this requirement.
4. Reduced punishment for violations
A key relaxation proposed under the amendment is reducing the maximum jail term for FCRA violations from five years to one year. Supporters of the change say it brings proportionality to penalties.
Why are churches and Opposition parties opposing the bill?
Opposition parties and several church bodies have raised concerns over two major provisions asset control powers and restrictions linked to proselytisation. Critics argue that allowing a government-appointed authority to take over NGO assets could raise questions related to property rights and constitutional protections.
Also Read: Lok Sabha Disrupted Over FCRA Bill, Opposition Protests Intensify
Church organisations in states such as Kerala and Meghalaya have expressed concerns, saying many charitable institutions operate hospitals, schools and welfare programmes through foreign donations.
Kerala has opposed the proposed changes, while Meghalaya Chief Minister Conrad Sangma has also raised objections. Opposition parties, including Congress and Left groups, have argued that the amendment could affect civil society organisations and freedom of association.
What does the government say?
The Centre has defended the proposed amendments, saying they are aimed at ensuring accountability and preventing misuse of foreign funds.
Union Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju has said the bill is not targeted at any religion or organisation and that genuine welfare groups should not be concerned.
The government has maintained that only organisations violating rules will face action and that greater transparency is necessary in the management of foreign contributions.