India’s proposed foreign-contribution reforms should be judged by their text, safeguards and application, not through the false prism of government versus civil society, or one religion versus another.
Foreign funding is neither inherently suspect nor inherently virtuous. It can support hospitals, schools, disaster relief, research, humanitarian programmes and community initiatives. Yet money that originates outside a country’s borders and is deployed within its social, political or religious landscape raises legitimate public-interest questions: who receives it, from whom, for what purpose and subject to what accountability? India’s proposed Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2026 must be understood in that context.
The proposed changes must also be viewed against operational gaps in the existing framework. Foreign funding can be used for entirely lawful public-good purposes. But where traceability is weak, funds can be routed through layers of donors, intermediaries, projects or seemingly legitimate entities. This can make it difficult to identify the true source of the money, the persons behind it, its intended purpose and its eventual use.
The concern is not that every NGO, trust or religious institution is engaged in wrongdoing. Plainly, that is not the case. The concern is that large, opaque and poorly monitored flows of foreign money can, in some instances, be diverted towards activity that is contrary to public order, democratic processes, economic interests or national security. A country seeking to protect its sovereignty and development has a legitimate interest in closing these gaps, ensuring that funds are used for their declared purpose and preventing charitable structures from being misused as a cover for unlawful activity or undue foreign influence.
AN EXISTING FRAMEWORK, NOT A NEW IDEA
The Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, or FCRA, is not a new instrument. India’s present FCRA, enacted in 2010, already regulates the acceptance and utilisation of foreign contributions by eligible persons, associations and organisations. The proposed 2026 Bill seeks to make further statutory changes. Separately, the FCRA Amendment Rules, 2026 have introduced more detailed compliance and disclosure requirements. The central principle remains straightforward: foreign funds may support legitimate and valuable work, but they must be received and used within a transparent legal framework.
The proposed changes seek to strengthen this accountability in several ways. They create a defined mechanism for dealing with unutilised foreign contributions and assets created from foreign funds when an organisation’s registration is cancelled, surrendered, expires or is not renewed. They also place greater responsibility on trustees, directors, office bearers and other key functionaries who oversee the organisation’s use of foreign contributions. The framework further seeks better traceability from the original donor to the recipient organisation and from the recipient to the stated project or purpose. More detailed disclosures, purpose-based monitoring and clearer links between funds, activities and locations can make it easier to identify whether money is being used in accordance with the conditions on which it was received.
This is not about preventing genuine charitable work. It does not diminish the vital role played by civil society, educational institutions, charities or faith-based organisations. It is about ensuring that foreign contributions are not merely received lawfully, but are also transparently managed, properly used and traceable from source to final purpose.
ACCOUNTABILITY MUST APPLY EQUALLY
India is not alone in regulating foreign funding and foreign influence. Major democracies, including the United States, require disclosure of certain foreign-directed activities under the Foreign Agents Registration Act and prohibit foreign nationals from contributing to elections. Australia, the United Kingdom and Canada have also adopted foreign-influence transparency frameworks. The legal models differ, but the underlying principle is familiar: foreign money affecting domestic public life must be transparent, traceable and open to lawful scrutiny. Foreign funding cannot be immune from public oversight simply because the recipient has a charitable, civic or religious character.
India’s framework should be assessed by the same standard. The relevant question is not whether an organisation is an NGO, trust, educational institution, charity, church, temple, mosque, gurdwara or social enterprise. Nor should the applicable standard depend on whether it serves a majority or minority community. The essential question is whether an entity receiving foreign contributions complies with the law governing those contributions.
DEBATE IS LEGITIMATE, LABELS ARE NOT
Legal and policy questions about the Bill can, and should, be raised. Every proposed amendment deserves careful legislative scrutiny, clear drafting, fair process and meaningful remedies.
But that is very different from asserting that the law is an attack on religion or an attack on NGOs.
Where, precisely, does the proposed framework state that a particular faith is to be targeted? Where does it suggest that an NGO is inherently suspect merely because it is an NGO? The legal trigger is not religious identity, charitable status or ideological affiliation. It is the receipt and management of foreign contributions and compliance with the statutory conditions attached to them.
The debate must therefore remain rooted in the text of the law, rather than assumptions about whom it may inconvenience or which interests may oppose greater disclosure.
QUESTION THE NARRATIVE
This issue must not be reduced to government versus civil society. Accountability is not hostility. Transparency is not persecution. Equal application of the law is not discrimination.
Public debate must be based on what the law actually says, not on fear or assumptions.
If someone claims that the proposed FCRA changes target a particular religion or are intended to shut down NGOs, it is fair to ask: which provision says so? Does the Bill treat a church differently from a temple, mosque, gurdwara or any other religious institution? Does it impose a different standard on an NGO merely because it is an NGO?
Organisations are entitled to seek clear rules, fair notice, an opportunity to respond and a proper appeal process.
But there is a clear difference between asking for procedural fairness and claiming, without evidence, that a compliance law is designed to persecute a community or destroy civil society. No one has a right to avoid reasonable scrutiny of foreign funding or to control the public debate by presenting accountability as persecution.
We as citizens must also be alert to the power of narrative. Repeated often enough, an allegation can begin to feel like a fact. A compliance reform can be portrayed as an attack, a demand for disclosure as hostility and a rule that applies equally as discrimination. The public should ask whether criticism is supported by the Bill’s text and a genuine procedural concern or whether a legitimate accountability measure is being recast as a threat to create fear, resist scrutiny or advance a wider political narrative.
These questions do not deny anyone the right to criticise the government. They protect the public’s right to distinguish genuine concerns from manufactured fear and lawful rights from claims that seek to place foreign funding beyond accountability.
Foreign funding is a matter of national concern because it engages public trust, institutional integrity and democratic sovereignty. Every recipient of foreign contribution, regardless of faith, ideology, size or influence, should be prepared to answer legitimate questions about it.
*Khushbu Jain is a practising advocate in the Supreme Court of India and founding partner of Ark Legal, specialising in privacy law and data protection. She can be contacted at @ advocatekhushbu on X.
