Centre Defends FCRA Amendments: National Security or NGO Clampdown?

The Indian government has strongly defended its proposed amendments to the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA), telling a House panel that the changes are aimed at bolstering national security and are not directed against any particular community. Govind Mohan, a key official, presented these justifications as Members of Parliament sought greater clarity on the potential impact of these new provisions on minority groups and various non-governmental organizations across the country.

During the presentation, it was highlighted that the United States remains the largest donor country, contributing a substantial ₹12,113 crore in the fiscal year 2024-25. The UK followed with ₹2,414 crore, and Germany with ₹1,782 crore. Mohan reminded the panel that the 2010 amendment had already introduced stringent measures, such as mandatory FCRA license renewals every five years and granting the government the authority to suspend licenses.

The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) also revealed that nearly 36,488 FCRA registrations have been cancelled to date, with 120 cases currently pending in various courts.

A significant aspect of the proposed amendments involves tighter oversight on investigations into FCRA violations.

Currently, notified agencies are permitted to initiate such investigations.

However, the new bill stipulates that prior approval from the Central government will be a prerequisite for starting any investigation.

This change aims to streamline the process and ensure central oversight.

Furthermore, the government is looking to address what it identifies as loopholes in the current system, where some entities might receive large sums over extended periods through certain routes, thereby avoiding regular renewal scrutiny. The new bill empowers the government to set specific time limits for the receipt and utilization of foreign contributions under prior permission.

This is expected to enhance accountability and transparency in the use of foreign funds.

Another contentious provision allows a designated authority to sell, use, or transfer vested assets.

While some lawmakers have raised objections, Mohan defended this by stating it is “impractical for prescribed authority to work as mere custodian for indefinite period.” This suggests a move towards more active management of assets associated with organizations that have had their registrations cancelled or are found in violation.

The bill, initially introduced in the Lok Sabha on March 25 and subsequently referred to the Joint Parliamentary Committee on August 12, has drawn considerable concern from opposition parties, civil society organizations, and religious bodies, prompting the detailed review by the panel.

#FCRAAmendments #NationalSecurity #NGOFunding #IndianPolitics