At the first meeting of Parliament’s Joint Committee on the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2026, members raised a barrage of questions on the proposed changes, with the thrust of the ruling party MPs’ queries focused on utilisation of foreign contributions and Opposition members questioning provisions dealing with assets when an organisation’s FCRA licence is cancelled.
Officials further argued that in cases of prolonged custodianship, States may face budgetary and manpower constraints in managing vested institutions such as schools, hospitals and orphanages.
The Opposition objected to the provision relating to the “designated authority”, which will have a wide ambit of powers. Under the provision, if an organisation’s Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA) certificate is cancelled, surrendered, or lapses automatically, foreign contributions and all assets created from them would vest in a government-appointed “designated authority”, without a prior hearing or judicial determination. The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), in its submission, said the proposed amendments are aimed at making the use of foreign contributions more transparent and accountable. Ministry representatives also argued that the provision for a “designated authority” is not new to the law. Under the existing legislation, there is a provision for a “prescribed authority”, which, according to a notification issued on November 5, 2018, is the Additional Chief Secretary or Principal Secretary (Home) of the concerned State or Union Territory. However, under the current law, there is no deadline for such custodianship, leaving the “prescribed authority” as a “passive custodian” unable to take “substantive decisions on assets”. There is also no standard procedure for taking possession of such assets, maintaining inventories or segregating foreign-contribution assets from domestically funded ones, the MHA said in its submission, according to sources. The existing law is also silent on the final disposal of assets and the treatment of places of worship, they said.
Wilson and the Trinamool Congress’ Menaka Guruswamy, argued that deprivation of property cannot be permitted without a prior hearing under Article 300A of the Constitution. Members questioned the Ministry’s rationale for segregating contributions received under religious heads.
Several Opposition members, according to sources, including the DMK’s P.
