The Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill 2026, introduced in India’s Lok Sabha (House of the People), which is the part of the Lower House of the Legislature of the Union known as Parliament, on March 25, proposes to oversee the foreign funding of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) to ensure such “inflows do not adversely affect national interest, public order or national security”.

The Bill seeks to address omissions in the existing Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 (FCRA), which has undergone amendments in 2016, 2018, and 2020, and faces strict FCRA accreditation requirements that affect NGOs’ ability to receive foreign funding. At the heart of the present amendment lies the power of the designated authority to manage, use, transfer, or dispose of assets created from foreign contributions by NGOs whose FCRA certificate is cancelled, surrendered or ceased. Such assets will be utilised for public purposes, thereby amplifying the existing disparities in granting operational autonomy to NGOs.

While the Indian Supreme Court upheld that receiving foreign funding by charitable associations is not a vested right, the proposed amendment serves as a blatant mechanism for harassing, intimidating, and censoring NGOs. This reinforces concerns about undermining the right of NGOs to freedom of association, as protected by Article 19 of India’s Constitution and Article 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (the “ICCPR”). The prohibition on foreign funding enables the Government to target the NGOs, which is prejudicial in protecting the individual’s ability to operate NGOs without undue government interference. Statistical abstraction indicates that 21,933 organisations in India have lost their FCRA licenses, resulting in permanent closure or severe restrictions on their activities.

Amnesty International has warned that the amendment enables the government to further crack down on civil society under the pretext of national security. Without empathetically understanding the potential side effects of arbitrarily curtailing NGOs’ freedom of association, the government quietly turns FCRA into a political weapon. For receiving foreign funding, every NGO is mandated to obtain a certificate of registration, which is renewable every 5 years. Such a certificate is revocable when it prejudicially affects “public interest”.

The enforcement of the Bill will trigger the closure of NGOs that depend on foreign funding, leaving them to seek mercy at the whims and fancies of the designated authority.  UN Special Rapporteur Maina Kiai had signalled that the Indian government’s unfettered discretion in determining the grant of foreign funding to NGOs, based on notions of public interest, is vague and overbroad, imposing onerous and burdensome requirements on NGOs. International comparative practice indicates that access to foreign funding is vital to the exercise of freedom of association, and that governmental discretion in regulating such funding must be curbed. For instance, the United States (US) does not restrict NGOs from receiving foreign funding and stipulates that funding is not tied to a registration requirement, thereby protecting the freedom to form associations of NGOs. The Foreign Agents Registration Act, 22 U.S.C. § 611 et seq. (FARA) is a disclosure statute operating in the US to facilitate a transparent mechanism in ensuring financial accountability and anti-money-laundering safeguards by mandating any person or organisation (US or foreign) that is an agent of a foreign principal to make periodic disclosure about the receipts and disbursements of foreign funding utilised in conducting the activities of the NGOs.

The operational autonomy of NGOs in India has been severely curtailed to accommodate the state’s interests in achieving compliance with compliance standards. The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) in 2024 noted that India is only ‘partially compliant’ with safeguards for NGOs, as FCRA continues to stifle NGOs’ access to essential funds.

On April 1^st, the Opposition parties protested against the passage of the Bill, terming it “draconian” as seizure of assets by the designated authority on minuscule grounds risks NGOs, charities and civil society organisations from functioning effectively. Moreover, the Kerala Catholic Bishops’ Council and the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of India (CBCI) have highlighted that the proposed amendment is “dangerous, undemocratic, unconstitutional and contrary to principles of natural justice”. The Centre had no choice but to put the Bill on hold in the Lok Sabha.

The grave concern raised by the Bill reflects the prolonged influence of government authorities in clamping down on human rights defenders who have been targets of intimidation and abuse. It will be interesting to see how India’s democracy will oscillate between invalidating the present amendment and deferring to political volatility in the upcoming days of discussion.