Published Jul 01, 2026 | 2:55 PM ⚊ Updated Jul 01, 2026 | 2:55 PM
Kerala Chief Minister VD Satheesan in the Assembly. (File Photo)
Synopsis: The resolution sought the withdrawal of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2026 and the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Rules, 2026 citing that it even went against Constitutional guarantees.
The Kerala Legislative Assembly on Wednesday passed a government resolution urging the Union Government to withdraw the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2026 and the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Rules, 2026, contending that the proposed changes would adversely affect the functioning of voluntary and charitable organisations across the country, particularly in Kerala.
The resolution was moved by Chief Minister VD Satheesan and was adopted after a division.
Of the 113 members present in the House, 111 voted in favour of the resolution, while two BJP legislators voted against it.
The resolution stated that the amendments to the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Rules, notified by the Centre on June 22, 2026, would undermine the autonomy of civil society organisations and create procedural and financial hurdles for voluntary institutions engaged in social welfare, education, healthcare, rehabilitation of persons with disabilities, disaster management and other public service activities.
According to the resolution, organisations registered under the FCRA would be restricted to activities falling within 105 specified areas under five categories—social, educational, cultural, economic and religious—instead of being allowed to receive foreign contributions for broader objectives.
It also objected to the requirement that organisations registered in one state should obtain fresh registration to undertake activities in another state, describing it as an impediment to voluntary work.
The House also expressed concern over provisions requiring verification of utilisation of the first instalment of foreign contributions before subsequent instalments are released, saying such a condition could delay the implementation of projects.
It further criticised the proposal to impose penalties of up to 30 per cent of the foreign contribution received for violations of the rules, arguing that even minor technical lapses could threaten the financial stability of organisations.
Also Read | Explained: Why Kerala MPs KC Venugopal and John Brittas are demanding the withdrawal of FCRA Rules 2026?
The resolution said the requirement to disclose the personal social media accounts and websites of office-bearers and individuals associated with organisations amounted to an invasion of privacy.
It also objected to the provision requiring disclosure of publications, including books, magazines and news articles produced by those associated with organisations during the previous year, along with summaries of their contents, contending that it infringed upon the constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression.
The Assembly also opposed the expanded definition of “key functionary”, which brings directors, trustees and partners within the scope of personal liability for violations under the Act.
It argued that the provision could discourage professionals and eminent personalities from participating in voluntary and charitable activities.
Expressing concern over provisions relating to the management of assets, the resolution said the proposed amendments would empower the government to appoint a designated authority to take over, manage or dispose of assets created using foreign contributions if an organisation’s FCRA registration is suspended, cancelled or not renewed.
Such powers, it said, could be exercised through administrative orders without adequate judicial oversight, violating principles of natural justice and the rule of law.
Also Read: Protest prayer meetings planned in Catholic churches against tightened FCRA
The House further observed that restrictions on the transfer of foreign contributions to partner organisations and tighter controls over bank account operations would severely affect grassroots voluntary organisations delivering essential public services.
While acknowledging the need to prevent illegal foreign funding, the resolution maintained that the proposed framework would make it difficult even for transparent charitable organisations to function effectively, thereby affecting the flow of foreign assistance intended for public welfare.
It also expressed apprehension over the inclusion of the term “proselytisation” in the amendments, stating that the undefined expression could be interpreted broadly and misused to cancel the registrations of organisations working among indigenous and tribal communities, thereby affecting charitable and developmental activities in remote areas.
Maintaining that the proposed amendments were inconsistent with the guarantees under Articles 19, 20 and 25 of the #Constitution and contrary to the principles of federalism, the Assembly urged the Union Government to immediately withdraw both the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2026 and the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Rules, 2026.
(With inputs from Dileep V Kumar.)
