Indian Churches and NGOs Breathe Sigh of Relief as Controversial FCRA Bill Faces Joint Parliamentary Committee Review
New Delhi, India – Christian organizations across India, from the prominent Catholic Bishops Conference of India to independent rural ministries, are experiencing a temporary reprieve after news emerged that the government intends to refer the contentious Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment (FCRA) Bill, 2026, to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC). This development follows days of heightened tension surrounding the bill’s provisions.
Reports indicate that a motion to send the bill to a JPC could be introduced before Parliament adjourns on August 13. Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju is reportedly seeking to mollify Christian bodies, their intermediaries among chief ministers and parliamentarians, and civil society groups, aiming to provide the government with a crucial pause to address other political challenges, including a vigorous opposition from the Congress party.
The FCRA Bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha on March 25, but its most debated clause has remained unchanged despite five months of protests. This particular provision dictates that upon the lapse, cancellation, or surrender of an organization’s FCRA registration, any assets acquired with foreign funds would automatically vest in a government-appointed "designated authority," without any judicial review process.
Such a provision raised significant alarm, as it could lead to the seizure of schools, hospitals, orphanages, Church buildings constructed over a century with foreign donations, and charities receiving international funding. These assets would become vulnerable to administrative confiscation if a license were deemed to have lapsed.
In response to these concerns, a delegation of Christian leaders, including senior bishops, led by Rajya Sabha member P. Wilson from the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam party, met with Federal Home Minister Amit Shah. Mizoram Chief Minister Lalduhoma also held discussions with the minister. Both were assured that the law would not be applied retrospectively, a concession that addressed the timing of implementation but not the underlying concern about the government’s consistent tightening of regulations on churches and NGOs.
A Joint Parliamentary Committee, unlike a department-related standing committee, comprises members from both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha and can involve multiple ministries. However, a JPC report is advisory, and the government has already signaled its intent to legislate this framework in some form in the future, as indicated by a Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) lawmaker’s response to an American senator who voiced concerns for Indian Christians. While the senator’s "concerns" have been "heard," the lawmaker stated that the government intends to proceed with some form of legislation.
The monsoon session of Parliament concludes on August 14, at which point the current FCRA Bill will lapse. However, it can be reintroduced next year, potentially in an altered form and possibly without the "predatory clauses" targeting properties. Therefore, referring the bill to a JPC should not be interpreted as the government abandoning its objectives.
The Ministry of External Affairs’ response to American concerns about the bill has been firm, with India asserting that it is an internal matter. This stance mirrors Delhi’s approach to concerns raised by the United Nations and other international human rights groups regarding anti-Christian violence in Kandhamal or Manipur, village bans on Christian burials, the arrest of Catholic nuns, and attacks on independent pastors.
The FCRA Bill is seen as part of a broader, decade-long initiative to progressively restrict the operational space for foreign-funded civil society organizations, particularly the Christian institutional presence in health, education, and tribal welfare. Data from the FCRA portal reveals a significant disparity: 14,449 active certificates compared to 22,498 canceled and an additional 15,212 deemed expired. Independent analyses from 2022 indicated that over 70% of organizations whose licenses had lapsed were Christian-affiliated, including World Vision India, the Church’s Auxiliary for Social Action, and the Evangelical Fellowship of India, all of which lost their registrations in 2024.
Earlier, Compassion International was forced to cease operations in India within three years of the Narendra Modi government first taking office. In 2021, Mother Teresa’s Missionaries of Charity had its renewal suspended, an action widely viewed as disproportionate to any alleged infraction.
The question now facing the Church and the broader NGO sector is whether they have a contingency plan. While the Church has remained silent, NGOs admit they currently lack an alternative, as government-mandated Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) funding is unlikely to support their activities, especially those focused on empowering the poor and marginalized.
CSR spending under Section 135 of the Companies Act reached approximately 270 billion rupees (US$2.82 billion) in the previous financial year. However, this funding is not freely available or evenly distributed. Credible estimates suggest that roughly 85% of this pool goes to a small number of large, well-connected NGOs with existing corporate relationships, leaving the remaining 15% to be contested by over 300,000 registered organizations.
Furthermore, companies with the largest CSR budgets are often those heavily reliant on government contracts, licenses, and regulatory goodwill, such as infrastructure giants, public sector banks, and telecom and energy companies. Expecting these corporations to fund a Church-run school in Bastar or a Dalit Christian legal aid cell, particularly when the home ministry is expressing disapproval of such institutions, is seen as expecting them to undertake commercial self-harm.
CSR was never designed to replace foreign philanthropy in sectors where foreign funds have traditionally provided the most support, such as Dalit and tribal welfare, minority legal aid, and faith-linked healthcare in regions underserved by the state for decades. Domestic capital, influenced by domestic political risks, is unlikely to challenge the establishment.
The referral to a JPC offers a window of opportunity for the Church and NGOs to formulate a strategy in case the government secures a JPC mandate and reintroduces a similar bill next year. During this period, the Church and allied civil society bodies need to build a domestic constituency that currently lacks strong parliamentary representation. This could include trade unions, Dalit and Adivasi rights groups, RTI and transparency networks, and the broader secular civil liberties community, all of whom have reasons to fear a designated authority empowered to seize property without judicial oversight.
A coordinated legal strategy is also crucial, to be prepared before any version of the bill is enacted, rather than assembled in panic afterward, given the weak due process protections in the current draft. Additionally, there is a need for honest, public and internal discussions about domestic fundraising, endowment-building, and diversified giving. These, though less glamorous than foreign grants, must now be established as permanent infrastructure rather than temporary improvisations.
The government’s offer of a JPC reference comes from a position where its ultimate objective has been clear. Therefore, the Christian community must utilize this time to organize itself effectively to prevent future laws or FCRA amendments from causing the kind of widespread panic that the 2026 bill generated.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official editorial position of UCA News.
