Listen to this article:

On 22 June 2026, the Union government notified the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Rules through the Ministry of Home Affairs. Parliament has not yet passed the Bill that would give these Rules statutory backing.

It was introduced in the Lok Sabha in March, referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) after several parties objected, and is expected to return in the monsoon session that started on Monday (July 20). Parliament is supposed to debate and approve changes before they become law. Instead, churches, schools, hospitals, and charities have already begun complying with the new disclosure and registration conditions.

By the time parliament takes up the Bill, the new framework will already be running, and scrutiny risks becoming a formality that merely ratifies decisions already taken.

Christian institutions are among those most affected. There’s no denying they are deeply woven into India’s education and healthcare systems. Missionary societies built schools, colleges, hospitals, and orphanages long before independence, often in regions where public services were limited, and many still serve millions of Indians regardless of religion or caste. Many also rely on long-standing overseas church funding. Unfortunately, that historic feature has now become a source of vulnerability.

The government says stronger regulation is needed to improve transparency, prevent misuse of funds, and protect national security. These are legitimate goals. Every sovereign state can regulate foreign funding, and the Supreme Court has held that receiving foreign contributions is a statutory privilege, not a fundamental right. However, the real question is whether the Rules regulate it fairly and proportionately.

Measures meant to prevent misuse by a few should not burden thousands with long records of lawful service. Amendments to the FCRA since 2020 have steadily expanded executive control over foreign-funded organisations, on the grounds that some NGOs interfere in domestic affairs. Such concerns may justify closer scrutiny where there is credible evidence, but not treating every religious or charitable institution as a source of suspicion.

Independent assessments of India’s anti-money laundering framework have favoured a risk-based approach: focusing on organisations with identifiable risks, while........

© The Wire