Vesting of provisional asset-control powers in an executive-appointed authority raises due-process concerns. Discuss with reference to recent amendments to the FCRA.

The Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2026 creates a "Designated Authority" in which the foreign contribution and assets of an organisation vest provisionally the moment its FCRA certificate ceases [1]. Shifting custody of property to an executive nominee before adjudication tests the "just, fair and reasonable" standard that Article 21 demands of any procedure.

The new asset-control architecture

• Cessation is triggered not only by cancellation or surrender, but also by non-renewal, denial of renewal, or failure to apply before expiry [1].
• The Authority may supervise, manage, transfer assets to ministries or agencies, or dispose of them by sale [1].
• Assets created partly from foreign contribution vest wholly; only a "distinct or ascertainable" domestic portion may be reclaimed [1].
• Provisional vesting becomes permanent if the certificate is not renewed within the prescribed period [1].

Why due process is strained

• Executive as adjudicator: custody passes to a government-notified authority rather than a court or liquidator, blurring executive and judicial roles [1].
• Audi alteram partem gap: unlike cancellation, denial of renewal carries no reasonable opportunity to be heard and no appeal, yet triggers identical vesting [1].
• Article 300A: whole-asset vesting for partly-foreign assets sits uneasily with proportionality in deprivation of property.
• Chilling effect on Article 19(1)(c) freedom of association, sharpened for faith-based education and health providers.

The regulatory case on the other side

• FCRA's object is to prohibit use of foreign funds for activities detrimental to national interest; assets of defunct entities could otherwise be diverted unsupervised [2][4].
• It continues the tightening begun by the 2020 Act — designated SBI New Delhi account, 20% cap on administrative expenses, ban on sub-granting [3].
• Safeguards exist: appeal to the District Judge, protection of the religious character of places of worship, and reduction of maximum imprisonment from five years to one [1].

The concern lies in the procedure, not the purpose. Building in a pre-vesting hearing, an appeal against renewal denial, time-bound reasoned orders, and vesting confined to the demonstrably foreign-funded share would make the law both secure and constitutional — reconciling accountability in foreign funding with the associational freedom on which a vibrant civil society rests.