Published Jun 26, 2026 | 10:02 AM ⚊ Updated Jun 26, 2026 | 10:02 AM
John Brittas and KC Venugopal.
Synopsis: Lok Sabha MP KC Venugopal and Rajya Sabha MP John Brittas wrote to the Union government demanding the immediate withdrawal of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Rules, 2026. They said the amendments reflect a disturbing intent to micromanage, harass, and financially cripple the voluntary sector.
Following the Union government Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Rules, 2026, on 22 June, to amend the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) [F-C] Rules, 2011, Alappuzha MP KC Venugopal and Rajya Sabha MP John Brittas demanded its immediate withdrawal.
According to the amended rules, an organisation receiving foreign funds is required to choose from a predefined list of purposes and specify the states or Union Territories (UTs) where they will operate. Further, organisations are required to pay additional fees to operate in more than one state or UT and to have more than one purpose of operation.
While the amended rules allow a range of faith-based activities, proselytisation is excluded from several categories eligible for registration.
However, Brittas, a CPI(M) MP, noted that the expression “proselytisation” finds no definition either in the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 or in the amended Rules, nor has it acquired a settled statutory meaning in Indian law.
Noting that no democratic society can countenance conversion through force, fraud or coercion, the constitutional concern lies elsewhere, he said, “The Rules thus employ an undefined expression that is inherently susceptible to subjective and inconsistent administrative interpretation, conferring an unbridled discretion capable of arbitrary application and misuse. Such legal uncertainty is particularly troubling because Article 25 of the Constitution guarantees to every person, and not merely every citizen, the freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion…”
Venugopal, also the Congress general secretary (organisation), said that it is shocking that what was first brought in as legislation in Parliament is now being brought through the back door via the rules framework and termed the development “a total executive diktat”.
Also Read: Protest prayer meetings planned in Catholic churches against tightened FCRA
Venugopal said the amendments reflect a disturbing intent to micromanage, harass, and financially cripple the voluntary sector.
“Forcing NGOs to select their activities from a rigid, government-mandated list and restricting their operational geography destroys the very flexibility that allows these organisations to respond to on-ground realities and emergencies. Levying a separate fee for every additional state or category is nothing short of an administrative toll-tax designed to discourage pan-India social work,” Venugopal said.
He also slammed the imposition of fines, up to 30 percent of the funds or a minimum of ₹1 lakh for minor administrative deviations or operating outside pre-approved geographic zones, saying that it is highly vindictive. “These punitive measures will bankrupt small, grassroots organisations that lack corporate legal teams but do the heavy lifting for our nation’s most marginalised communities by destroying the religious minority institutions,” he said.
Brittas said these changes signify a decisive shift from regulating foreign contributions to regulating voluntary organisations themselves. “Read alongside the pending Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2026, they reveal a continuing movement towards an increasingly centralised and restrictive regulatory regime. It is against this backdrop that the new Amendment Rules warrant the closest scrutiny.”
The MPs also voiced opposition to mandating disclosure of social media accounts, websites, and every publication, including newspaper articles.
Veugopal said it exposes a mindset of mass surveillance. “Furthermore, adding vague caveats that educational or cultural awareness programs must ‘exclude political/ideological content’ is a transparent tool to silence civil society, throttle dissent, and ensure NGOs are intimidated into becoming mouthpieces for the ruling dispensation,” he said.
“These requirements travel well beyond the legitimate objective of ensuring financial accountability and extend regulatory scrutiny into the sphere of institutional communication, expression, thought, and digital presence. The cumulative effect is the creation of an extensive compliance and surveillance architecture that enables continuous oversight of virtually every significant facet of an organisation’s functioning, raising serious concerns regarding proportionality, institutional autonomy and informational privacy,” Brittas said.
Further, Brittas termed the insertion of Rule 14A arbitrary, which presumes that an organisation has undertaken “reasonable activity” only if it has utilised at least ₹10 lakh of foreign contribution during the preceding two financial years.
“The value of voluntary work cannot be measured by expenditure alone. Organisations engaged in legal aid, research, policy advocacy, heritage conservation, documentation or community mobilisation often operate with modest financial resources while generating substantial public benefit. Likewise, the requirement that at least 75 percent of a previous instalment be utilised and field-verified before subsequent instalments are released will seriously impede long-term educational, healthcare, research and humanitarian projects that necessarily operate in carefully planned phases,” he added.
Also Read: Just when the doors seemed to open, FCRA row hits BJP’s plan to woo Kerala Christians
The rule states that an association having foreign nationals, other than those of Indian origin, as its key functionaries will ordinarily not be considered eligible for the grant of registration or prior permission under the Act.
It added that the foreign contribution should be utilised only for activities carried out in India in accordance with the association’s stated objectives and for the purposes for which such contribution has been received.
Further, the amendment has replaced the term office-bearers or members of the governing body with key functionaries in several clauses.
Venugopal said broadening the definition of “key functionaries” and ordinarily banning foreign nationals from these roles isolates Indian NGOs from global expertise and international solidarity. “It sends a terrible message to the international community about India’s democratic health and openness.”
Brittas said the term “key functionaries” now extends far beyond office-bearers to include directors, trustees, partners, members of governing bodies and virtually any person exercising control over an association or responsibility for its affairs.
“The implications are profound. Distinguished academicians, retired civil servants, judges, medical professionals, scientists, philanthropists and other eminent citizens frequently lend their expertise to charitable institutions in an honorary capacity. By vastly widening the ambit of personal accountability through an open-ended definition, the Rules risk discouraging competent and public-spirited individuals from associating with voluntary institutions,” he said.
