"Transparency is not an assault on minority rights; it is a condition of public trust." Discuss with reference to the regulation of foreign contributions in India.

The Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 is run by the Ministry of Home Affairs. It allows foreign funds only for declared purposes. The FCRA (Amendment) Bill, 2026 is now before a Joint Parliamentary Committee [1], and it has revived an old question. Disclosure builds trust, but penalties that go beyond what is needed can destroy it.

Transparency as a condition of public trust

• Scale justifies scrutiny: 13,520 organisations received ₹55,741 crore between 2019 and 2022 [1].
• Traceability: the 2020 amendment required all FC to come into one "FCRA account" at SBI, New Delhi. It also capped administrative spending at 20% and made office-bearers' Aadhaar mandatory [2].
• Misuse is real: 6,677 registrations were cancelled during 2017–21 [3].
• Reciprocal accountability: Article 30 protects the right of minorities to run their institutions. It does not exempt them from audit. Publishing their own accounts strengthens their case.
• Softer edges: the Bill cuts the maximum jail term from five years to one. It also requires prior Central approval before any investigation can begin [1].

When regulation turns into an assault

• Ownership, not disclosure: a Designated Authority can take over assets built with foreign contribution simply because a registration was not renewed. No finding of misuse is needed [1].
• All-or-nothing vesting: a hospital ward built with a mix of foreign and Indian funds passes to the state in full [1].
• Due-process gap: a refusal to renew gets no hearing and no appeal, although a cancellation can be appealed [1].
• Small bodies shut out: the 2026 Rules require at least ₹10 lakh of FC use to qualify for renewal, which low-cost bodies may fail [1]. The 2020 ban on passing funds to other NGOs has already hurt grassroots groups [2].
• Reverse burden: key functionaries are presumed liable unless they prove they took due care [1].
• Beneficiaries suffer: students, patients and poor people served by minority-run schools and hospitals bear the loss.

Way forward

• A hearing and a High Court appeal for non-renewal, as already exist for cancellation.
• A clean exit: a body that stops taking FC files a final audited statement and keeps its assets, but cannot sell them.
• Mixed assets split by value; the vesting deadline set by Parliament, not by Rules.
• A purpose-based activity test instead of a spending-based one.

Transparency and minority rights support each other. Openness earns institutions the public trust that Article 30 assumes, and fair, proportionate regulation earns the state the same trust. If the JPC brings the Bill in line with Articles 14 and 19(1)(c), the FCRA can build trust rather than suspicion.