The Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2026, introduced in the Lok Sabha on Tuesday, March 25, by Minister of State for Home Affairs Nityanand Rai on behalf of Home Minister Amit Shah, has drawn immediate and fierce opposition from the Catholic Church, political parties, and civil society organisations, who warn that it hands the government sweeping powers to seize the assets of minority institutions and NGOs. Listed as Bill No. 97 of 2026 under the Ministry of Home Affairs, the bill remains pending before Parliament.
The bill, which seeks to amend the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010, proposes the creation of a “designated authority” with powers to take provisional and permanent control of the foreign contributions and assets of any organisation whose FCRA registration is cancelled, surrendered, or lapses. Under a newly added provision, a registration certificate will be deemed to have ceased if no application for renewal was made, if renewal has been denied, or if renewal is not obtained before expiry. Once assets vest permanently in the designated authority, it may transfer them to any ministry, department, or agency of the central, state, or local government, or dispose of them through sale, with proceeds credited to the Consolidated Fund of India. The organisation and its office bearers are barred from reacquiring any interest in those assets. The bill also mandates that no FCRA investigation can be initiated without prior approval of the Central Government, and reduces the maximum imprisonment term for contraventions from five years to one year. Persons aggrieved by orders of the designated authority may appeal to the District Judge within 90 days. The bill does not establish an independent appellate tribunal.
The scale of what is at stake is visible in the government’s own data. The FCRA online dashboard maintained by the Ministry of Home Affairs shows, as of the date of publication, that only 14,996 associations remain active, while 21,954 have had their registrations cancelled and a further 15,174 are deemed expired. Responding to the bill’s introduction, Aakar Patel, Chair of Board at Amnesty International India, described the amendment as “a blatant abuse of this legislation designed to further crack down on civil society under the pretext of national security,” and called on the Lok Sabha to reject it. Amnesty’s own research, Patel said, has shown that those most impacted are organisations associated with minority rights, freedom of expression, environmental rights, and climate action.
The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of India was among the first domestic voices to respond. In a press statement issued on March 26, the apex body of the Catholic Church in India described the bill as “dangerous and alarming in its implications,” warning that it had been brought “under the pretext of licence renewal” to enable executive overreach into constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. “The CBCI strongly objects to provisions that empower the Central Government, being the licensing authority, to deny renewal or cancel licenses and subsequently, through a newly proposed authority, assume control over the institutions, funds, properties, and assets of minority organizations and NGOs. Such measures are unacceptable and raise serious concerns regarding fairness, transparency, and accountability,” the statement said. The bishops described the asset seizure provisions as “undemocratic, unconstitutional, and contrary to the principles of natural justice,” and urged the government to “reconsider the proposed amendments and to remove all contentious provisions from the bill.”
The bill’s introduction on March 25 was fiercely contested in the House. Congress MP Manish Tewari rose under Rule 72(1) to oppose the motion, arguing the bill gave “wide and unguided executive control over property.” Trinamool Congress MP Pratima Mondal called it “a draconian Bill” that “centralises disproportionate authority in the executive.” The CBCI too questioned why the bill was brought unilaterally despite protests from opposition Members of Parliament, calling for wider consultation on matters affecting fundamental rights. The Chair put the motion to a voice vote and the bill was introduced. Presenting it, Rai said the government would take strong action against those misusing foreign funds for activities including forced religious conversions.
On March 27, the Congress party escalated its attack. General secretary K C Venugopal called the bill a “snatch-and-grab operation” and alleged that the existing FCRA had already been turned into an instrument of political targeting. “Under this regime, the FCRA has been weaponised to silence those not aligned with the BJP ideology, and to exert control over organisations that carry out vast philanthropic efforts,” Venugopal said. He warned that the amendments would go further still: “We have seen the BJP use the FCRA to make its ideological rivals and organisations toe the line, and this unconstitutional Bill is another step in that direction, where if you don’t do exactly as per Narendra Modi’s wishes, not only will you lose your license, but also assets you lawfully hold.” He described the bill as “fascist” and demanded its immediate rollback.
The Kerala Catholic Bishops Council Jagratha Commission drew a direct parallel between the amendment and anti-conversion legislation, pointing to a statement by Rai in Parliament as particularly revealing. “The danger of communalism conquering the country is becoming clearer when the Union Minister himself declared that the Prohibition of Conversion Act and FCRA have the same objectives,” said Fr Michael Pulickal, secretary of the KCBC Jagratha Commission. He warned the bill targets institutions in education, health, and social service with retrospective effect and amounts to “judging services based on religion.”
The All India Christian Council condemned what it described as a legislative cover for seizing Christian properties built for the welfare of Dalits, tribals, and other marginalised communities. AICC president Archbishop Joseph D’Souza called the situation “dangerous and deeply alarming with immediate and potentially irreversible consequences,” and charged that any authority constituted under the bill would be staffed by RSS-affiliated individuals. He alleged the bill followed a call in an RSS journal, published while the waqf properties issue was before the Supreme Court, for the government to bring Christian properties under similar state control. This claim could not be independently verified. “The proposed new FCRA amendment is merely a ploy for the government to take over properties and assets run by Christian institutions,” D’Souza said. The AICC demanded that the Union and state governments immediately suspend all processes related to such asset transfers.
Congress MP Shashi Tharoor described the bill as “truly perverse” in its targeting of institutions like the Church and urged his party colleagues to resist it by every legal means, demanding at minimum that it be referred to a select committee for proper scrutiny.
The FCRA, originally enacted in 1976 and comprehensively replaced in 2010, has been amended in 2016, 2018, and 2020, each time tightening the regulatory framework for foreign-funded organisations. The bill remains pending before Parliament.
