The CPI(M) has launched a two-pronged attack on the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2026, with both the party’s general secretary and its Rajya Sabha leader writing separately to the Prime Minister and the Home Minister demanding its withdrawal.
Party general secretary MA Baby wrote to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, demanding that the government “immediately rescind this legislation” in the interest of “constitutional morality and democratic principles.” Rajya Sabha MP and CPI(M) parliamentary group leader Dr. John Brittas wrote to Union Home Minister Amit Shah, urging him to withdraw the Bill before it proceeds further in Parliament.
Brittas described the proposed amendments as a “fundamental structural shift” in the statutory framework governing foreign contributions, warning of serious constitutional, legal and institutional implications. He argued that the Bill creates “an architecture for disproportionate and ultra vires executive control over civil society institutions and charitable assets,” going well beyond legitimate regulatory oversight.
Central to both letters is the proposed Section 16A, which would create a “Designated Authority” empowered to assume management, control and permanent vesting, sale or transfer of assets of organisations whose FCRA registration is cancelled, expired, suspended or not renewed, including on account of administrative delays. Brittas warned that this provision grants “extraordinarily wide, unguided and disproportionate powers” to the executive. Baby called it “an extreme provision that threatens the very existence of civil society organisations.”
Brittas raised particular concern about the Bill enabling appropriation of assets built substantially from domestic donations and community contributions, not merely foreign funds. The Designated Authority would be empowered to permanently transfer such assets to government departments or dispose of them, crediting the proceeds to the Consolidated Fund of India. He also warned that the vesting provisions are capable of retrospective operation, “extending executive reach to assets already created under earlier statutory regimes.”
Baby argued that a series of amendments to the FCRA since 2016 reflect growing hostility towards NGOs, and that the 2026 Bill is “a continuation of this trend, threatening to effectively kill organisations that accept legitimate foreign contributions for charitable, educational, or human rights work.”
Baby additionally flagged a provision requiring state governments to seek prior approval from the Union government before initiating any FCRA-related investigation, arguing this undermines the federal structure enshrined in the Constitution. He warned that it creates “an environment of fear where organisations working in areas such as human rights, environmental protection, and minority welfare may find themselves targeted not for violations of law, but for dissent against government policies.”
Brittas raised specific constitutional concerns, citing potential infringement of rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19(1)(c), 25, 26, 29 and 30, including the right to form associations and the rights of minorities to establish and administer institutions of their choice. He particularly flagged the vulnerability of Christian educational, medical and charitable organisations that have built their infrastructure over decades through a combination of foreign philanthropic assistance and domestic contributions.
The Bill also widens personal liability provisions to cover key functionaries, trustees and office bearers, which Brittas warned risks discouraging legitimate philanthropic participation and “weakening voluntary sector engagement in public welfare.”
Citing official data, Brittas noted that around 16,000 organisations currently hold FCRA registration and receive approximately Rs. 22,000 crore annually. He pointed out that around 21,000 licences have been cancelled over the years. On transparency, he noted that organisation-wise compliance information was removed from the FCRA online portal in 2022, and that his own parliamentary questions seeking details of licence cancellations were disallowed on the ground that such information is “secret in nature.”
Both leaders called for wider consultation with stakeholders, constitutional experts and civil society representatives before any legislative action, with Brittas urging that reform must “strengthen transparency without undermining constitutional freedoms or the autonomy necessary for voluntary organisations to function effectively in a democratic society governed by the rule of law.”
