The proposed Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2026 has reignited a nationwide debate over the regulation of foreign-funded non-governmental organisations (NGOs), with the government arguing that stricter oversight is essential for national security and transparency, while civil society groups and religious organisations warn that the changes could hamper legitimate humanitarian work.
Introduced in the Lok Sabha during the Budget Session and notified last week, the Bill proposes a significant overhaul of India’s foreign funding regime by strengthening centralised control over overseas contributions. Among its key provisions are the creation of a designated authority to oversee foreign funding, tighter compliance mechanisms and more restrictive investigative procedures aimed at preventing misuse of foreign contributions.
INDIA’S FOREIGN FUNDING ECOSYSTEM
The amendments come against the backdrop of India’s vast foreign funding ecosystem. Every year, thousands of NGOs, charitable trusts, educational institutions, hospitals, research organisations and religious bodies receive overseas donations amounting to several thousand crore rupees.
Between 2019 and 2022 alone, over Rs 55,741 crore in foreign contributions were received by FCRA-registered organisations in India. In 2024-25, the figure stood at approximately Rs 20,000 crore. These are not small sums, they are resources capable of shaping public discourse, influencing electoral sentiment, funding protest movements, and swaying policy outcomes.
The government has maintained that the proposed changes are necessary to improve accountability and ensure that foreign contributions are utilised strictly for the purposes for which they are received. Officials have repeatedly argued that enhanced scrutiny is required to prevent misuse of overseas funds and safeguard India’s national interests.
VIOLATIONS THAT TAKE PLACE
According to government investigations, conducted over the years, several categories of violations have been identified under the existing Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA). Authorities have alleged diversion of funds from approved purposes, unauthorised transfer of foreign contributions to ineligible organisations, inaccurate financial reporting, concealment of transactions, failure to maintain proper accounts and delayed or incorrect filing of mandatory annual returns.
Investigative agencies have also cited instances where organisations receiving foreign funds allegedly engaged in political activities prohibited under the Act. Officials contend that some advocacy campaigns financed through overseas donations crossed the line into political mobilisation, thereby violating the statutory framework governing foreign contributions.
FUNDING FOR RELIGIOUS ORGANISATIONS
One of the most contentious aspects of the debate concerns religious organisations, particularly evangelical and church-linked institutions that have historically depended on international donor networks, overseas churches and charitable foundations for financial support. Church bodies argue that overseas donations primarily finance education, healthcare, disaster relief and humanitarian services without discrimination based on religion.
However, several other religious organisations and sections of the political establishment have long alleged that foreign funding has been used by certain missionary groups to facilitate religious conversions, particularly among tribal and economically disadvantaged communities. They argue that some organisations blur the distinction between humanitarian assistance and evangelism by using welfare activities to encourage religious conversion. Although minority organisations have consistently rejected these allegations, describing them as exaggerated or politically motivated. They maintain that their institutions function in accordance with the law and provide public services irrespective of religious affiliation.
The overlap between FCRA regulations and anti-conversion laws enacted in several states has further intensified tensions. Church groups contend that simultaneous scrutiny under both legal frameworks has created an atmosphere of suspicion that adversely affects legitimate charitable activities.
Earlier in June, a high-profile case reached the High Court after six individuals linked to the U.S.-based Christian missionary organisation, The Timothy Initiative (TTI) were booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The accused were charged with allegedly routing foreign funds into conflict-prone regions through foreign-issued debit cards, circumventing the mandatory Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA).
According to investigators, nearly Rs 95 crore was brought into India between November 2025 and April 2026 using a network of foreign-issued debit cards connected to overseas bank accounts. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has alleged that the funds were withdrawn repeatedly from ATMs across several states, including Left Wing Extremism-affected districts such as Bastar and Dhamtari in Chhattisgarh.
The Timothy Initiative (TTI) traces its origins to missionary work in India during the 1990s under “Project India.” It has since grown into a global evangelical organisation operating across Asia, Africa and Latin America, while continuing to maintain a significant presence in India under its mission of establishing “A Church in Every Village Everywhere.”
Earlier this year, The Sunday Guardian reported that internal strategy documents accessed by the newspaper showed that the Open Society Foundations (OSF), headed by billionaire George Soros, had earmarked up to US$50 million (approximately Rs 455 crore) for programmes in India under its Asia Pacific Regional Office Executive Strategy for 2021-24. According to the documents, the funding was proposed under an initiative titled “Endow Lasting Power in India”, with the objective of supporting sustainable infrastructure for an open society through impact investments in collaboration with OSF’s Economic Justice Program.
In 2023, the Union Ministry of Home Affairs revoked the FCRA registration of the Church of North India (CNI), one of the country’s oldest Protestant denominations, citing alleged violations of the Act. The decision came against the backdrop of ongoing scrutiny of the organisation, including allegations linked to a 2019 land scam, reportedly involving properties worth over Rs 10,000 crore. Several pastors had accused fellow clergy members of illegally selling hundreds of acres of church land using forged documents.
Similarly, in 2020, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) registered a case against the Tamil Nadu-based NGO Caruna Bal Vikas and its affiliates for allegedly violating Section 7 of the FCRA. The organisation, which received funding from the U.S.-based donor Compassion International, was accused of diverting foreign contributions to institutions that were not registered under the FCRA and of targeting economically disadvantaged children for religious conversion. The case ultimately led to Compassion International winding down its multi-million-dollar operations in India.
In another major enforcement action, the Ministry of Home Affairs permanently revoked the FCRA clearance of the Northern Evangelical Lutheran Church, along with associated institutions such as the Rajnandgaon Leprosy Hospital. The action followed audits that allegedly revealed the diversion of foreign grants meant for healthcare and tribal development into unauthorised activities, in violation of FCRA provisions.
Separately, systematic audits conducted by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) resulted in the freezing and non-renewal of hundreds of FCRA registrations of Pentecostal missionary organisations across South India, particularly in Kerala. The audits allegedly uncovered the diversion of foreign contributions into personal bank accounts, where the funds were reportedly used to repay loans taken for private vehicles and residential properties owned by local pastors. Such utilisation of foreign contributions for personal benefit constitutes a direct violation of the FCRA.
Several Christian organisations, including Catholic and Protestant institutions, have expressed concern over increasingly stringent enforcement of FCRA regulations. Over recent years, a number of church-affiliated organisations have seen their FCRA registrations suspended, cancelled or not renewed, affecting educational institutions, hospitals and social welfare programmes. Church representatives have sought greater clarity, transparency and procedural fairness in the implementation of FCRA provisions.
The impact has extended beyond religious organisations. Smaller grassroots NGOs that previously relied on larger organisations for sub-grants have reported declining financial support, resulting in staff reductions and scaling back of development projects.
Government data indicates that thousands of FCRA registrations have been cancelled over the years, while numerous organisations have failed to secure renewals or have come under investigation for alleged violations of the law. Organisations that have faced regulatory action include World Vision India, Jesus Redeems, TNSOSS, Tuticorin Diocesan Association and Florence Home Foundation.
THE U.S. FARA
The proposed amendments have also drawn international attention. It is worth noting that On June 15, lawmakers from both the Republican and Democratic parties in the United States criticised the proposed legislation, arguing that it could further restrict foreign-funded civil society organisations, including Christian institutions, and potentially empower authorities to seize organisational assets.
Legal experts familiar with India’s foreign funding framework argue that regulation of overseas funding is not unique to India. They point out that several democracies impose extensive disclosure requirements concerning foreign influence. In the United States, for instance, the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) mandates disclosure by individuals and organisations acting on behalf of foreign principals, while charities are subject to rigorous reporting requirements before the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), in addition to anti-money laundering and political funding laws.
Experts, however, note that while the US regulatory framework is spread across multiple statutes serving different objectives, India’s FCRA specifically governs foreign contributions received by NGOs and other organisations. They argue that every sovereign nation retains the right to regulate foreign funding in accordance with its national security requirements.
TIGHTER MONITORING
Speaking to The Sunday Guardian, Vinod Bansal, national spokesperson of the VHP, alleged that foreign funding routed through certain church-linked organisations was used not only for religious conversions but also to finance what he described as “anti-national” and “anti-establishment” activities, including support for Maoist and Naxalite networks.
Guru Prakash Paswan, BJP national spokesperson said that foreign funding cannot become a shield against accountability: “The FCRA is a sovereign regulatory framework designed to ensure transparency, not suppress legitimate civil society activity. Those complying with the law have nothing to fear.”
Seshadri Chari, a veteran journalist, said, “Several democracies periodically review foreign funding process and tighten FCRA with the objective to strengthen transparency, and accountability over foreign funding. India is no exception. Tighter monitoring reduces the risk of foreign contributions being diverted for activities other than those for which they were approved, including unlawful or anti-national activities.”
Representatives of religious bodies did not comment on the matter until the time of going to press.
