Critically examine whether successive amendments to the FCRA have struck the right balance between national security and the autonomy of civil society.

The Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010, administered by the MHA, controls foreign donations so that they are not used against the national interest. Amendments in 2016, 2018 and 2020, and now the pending 2026 Bill [2], have tightened oversight. However, the balance has slowly shifted from checking misuse towards controlling civil society.

Where the balance holds: gains for security and accountability

• Traceability: the 2020 Act requires all foreign contribution to come into an FCRA account at SBI, New Delhi Main Branch. It also made Aadhaar mandatory for office-bearers and barred public servants from receiving foreign contribution [1].
• Scale justifies oversight: 13,520 organisations received Rs 55,741 crore in 2019–22 [3].
• Probity: the cap on administrative expenses was cut from 50% to 20%, so more money goes to actual programmes [1].
• Some relief in 2026: the maximum jail term falls from five years to one, and prior Central approval is needed before any investigation. Both reduce the scope for harassment [3].

Where it tilts against civil-society autonomy

• Sub-grant ban: small grassroots NGOs that relied on larger intermediaries have lost access to funds [1].
• Exclusion on procedural grounds: 6,677 registrations were cancelled in 2017–21 [4]. The FCRA portal shows 14,449 active certificates against 22,498 cancelled and 15,212 deemed expired [3].
• Asset vesting: a new Designated Authority can take over assets built with foreign contribution when a licence is simply not renewed, without any finding of misuse. A hospital ward built with mixed funds vests in full [3].
• Due-process gap: a refusal to renew gets no hearing and no appeal, although cancellation can be appealed [3].
• Activity test: the 2026 Rules count a body as active only if it used at least Rs 10 lakh of foreign contribution in two years. Low-cost bodies may fail this test [3][5].
• These measures strain Art. 19(1)(c) and Art. 30, because restrictions on these rights must be reasonable and proportionate.

Way forward

• The JPC should extend the hearing and High Court appeal to non-renewal [3].
• Allow a clean exit through a final audited statement, and split mixed assets by value.
• Fix the vesting deadline in the Act itself, not in executive Rules.
• Replace the spending threshold with a purpose-based activity test.
• NGOs should publish their audited accounts voluntarily.

In sum, the amendments have rightly made foreign money traceable. But the move from disclosure to taking ownership treats paperwork lapses as if they were threats to the nation. If the JPC applies the test of proportionality (accountability without taking property), the law can protect national security while keeping the freedom of association and the work civil society does towards the SDGs.