The Centre has sought to allay concerns over the proposed Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2026, as it prepares to take up the legislation for discussion and passage in Parliament next week, with August 12 likely to be the date for debate.
Union Home Minister Amit Shah on Thursday met Mizoram Chief Minister Lalduhoma and representatives of Christian organisations, minority groups and charitable institutions, who have expressed reservations over certain provisions of the Bill. After the meeting, Lalduhoma said Shah had assured him that the proposed amendments would not have retrospective effect and would not apply to past cases.
Government sources said the Bill contains no provision for retrospective implementation and is broadly in line with the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010. They dismissed claims that the legislation targets Christian institutions, saying misconceptions were being spread about its intent.
The principal concerns relate to proposed Sections 14B, 16A and 16B. Section 14B provides that an organisation’s FCRA registration will lapse if it is not renewed or if renewal is refused. Sections 16A and 16B empower a designated authority to take charge of assets created using foreign contributions, such as schools, hospitals and community centres, if an organisation’s FCRA registration ceases.
Christian organisations fear these provisions could allow the government to assume control of assets created years earlier, even where institutions now function solely on domestic funding. They have demanded that the Bill either be withdrawn or referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee for detailed scrutiny.
Government sources, however, said the proposed mechanism is intended only as an interim arrangement to safeguard assets during the period an organisation lacks a valid FCRA licence. They maintained that once registration is restored, the assets would be returned to the organisation.
A delegation led by DMK MP and senior advocate P Wilson also submitted a clause-wise representation to Shah, arguing that the Bill could adversely affect minority-run educational institutions, hospitals, orphanages and places of worship, and sought repeal of provisions relating to asset vesting. Congress and other Opposition parties have also opposed the Bill.
(With inputs from agencies)