India: Christian NGOs Funded By Foreign Contributions Under Threat

A proposed reform by Narendra Modi’s government risks further suffocating Indian civil society and increasing pressure on religious minorities. Officially intended to strengthen oversight of foreign funding, the bill would allow the State to take control of the assets and property of non-governmental organizations (NGOs), including Christian organizations. In response to the strong criticism it has generated both in India and abroad, Parliament has not yet adopted the proposal. The ECLJ calls on the Indian authorities to abandon the most concerning provisions of the reform and to guarantee respect for the fundamental freedoms of the organizations concerned.

In March 2026, the Indian central government introduced to the Lok Sabha (the lower house of Parliament) a draft amendment[1] to the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA), which governs foreign funding for NGOs. Under the pretext of addressing perceived shortcomings in the current framework, the bill introduces provisions enabling the Indian State to take direct control of NGOs and seize their assets.

Religious institutions are among the organizations most likely to be affected by the reform. The proposal therefore risks legalizing the dispossession of organizations that are deeply embedded in India’s humanitarian landscape while further aggravating tensions between civil society and the Hindu nationalist government.

1. FROM REGULATION TO CONFISCATION: THE LEGAL ARSENAL OF THE 2026 FCRA BILL

Transfer of Assets to a “Designated Authority”

The central and most controversial measure of the proposed reform is the creation of a “Designated Authority,” an administrative body appointed by the federal government and placed under its direct supervision. Although a similar mechanism already existed under Section 15 of the 2010 legislation, it had never been implemented due to the absence of a designated authority and a detailed procedure for transferring assets.

In the event of a cancellation, surrender, or non-renewal of an FCRA licence, the Designated Authority would temporarily assume control over foreign contributions and all assets acquired through the contributions, including buildings, vehicles, medical equipment, and information technology infrastructure. Such a mechanism could therefore result in the automatic transfer of the assets of tens of thousands of organizations without compensation or prior judicial review. During this interim period, the Designated Authority would exercise extensive supervisory powers over the organization’s activities, resources, and finances while retaining direct control of relevant assets.

Expanded Powers of Seizure, Sale, and Nationalization

If the organization fails to secure a renewal of its license within the prescribed time frame, any asset transfers become permanent. The Designated Authority is then required to allocate the confiscated assets to purposes deemed to be in the “public interest.” These assets may be transferred to ministries, government agencies, or local authorities, or sold outright. The proceeds of such sales, together with any unused foreign contributions, would be transferred to the Consolidated Fund of India and incorporated into the State budget. If a place of worship is permanently transferred, special provisions are included to preserve their religious character and mitigate criticism. Nevertheless, their management would be entrusted to a person appointed by the authorities.

The Trap of Reversing the Burden of Proof for “Mixed Assets”

The reform also extends to so-called “mixed assets,” namely property financed through a combination of foreign and domestic funds. This designation may exist, for example, where only part of a building or real estate asset was financed through foreign contributions. Under the proposed legislation, the entirety of such an asset may be transferred to the State unless the organization can demonstrate the precise proportion that was financed through domestic resources. Legal experts have denounced this reversal of the burden of proof as particularly problematic. In practice, it could allow the State to appropriate property accumulated over several decades even when only a small portion was financed through foreign funding.[2] Producing such evidence may, in any event, prove extremely difficult for the affected organization.

The Introduction of Retroactive Application

To complete this legal arsenal, proposed Section 16B introduces a form of substantive retroactivity. Without prior judicial review or compensation, the new confiscation regime would apply to organizations whose licenses had already expired or been cancelled before the law entered into force. This raises serious concerns under international human rights law.

2. CHRISTIAN NGOS ON THE FRONT LINE

The Recent Loss of FCRA Licenses by Several Christian NGOs

This bill would have particularly severe consequences for Christian institutions, which have already been significantly weakened by the current regime governing foreign funding and by the growing number of FCRA license cancellations in recent years. As early as 2017, the American organization Compassion International was forced to cease its activities in India, ending partnerships with approximately 600 local churches.[3] Later, at the end of 2021, 5,789 NGOs lost their FCRA licenses which authorized them to receive foreign funding. Among these NGOs was the Missionaries of Charity, a congregation founded by Mother Teresa which operates care homes throughout India.[4] The authorities argued that the organization no longer met the eligibility requirements. Following public outcry, however, the congregation regained its license on January 7, 2022.

More recently, several organizations have had their licenses revoked. In January 2024, this was notably the case for World Vision India, which is active in child protection.[5] In February, the Tamil Nadu Social Service Society, a Christian NGO affiliated with the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of Tamil Nadu, was similarly affected.[6] In April, the Church’s Auxiliary for Social Action (CASA) and the Evangelical Fellowship of India (EFI) suffered the same fate.[7]

The Targeting of Major Social Actors

The consequences of this bill for Christian institutions are therefore particularly serious. As major providers of healthcare, education, and social services in India, they depend heavily on international contributions and are especially vulnerable to the withdrawal of FCRA licenses. The prospect of an administrative authority taking possession of their facilities and resources has generated considerable concern, especially given the vulnerability these organizations have already demonstrated in the face of State power.

This administrative harassment takes place within a climate of growing polarization fueled by Hindu nationalist movements, which frequently accuse Christian NGOs of proselytism.[8] It also forms part of a broader pattern of systematic pressure on religious minorities in contradiction with the principle of non-discrimination. In its 2025 report entitled Anti-Conversion Laws and the Persecution of Christians in India, the ECLJ documented the growing oppression of religious minorities by Hindu nationalism, particularly India’s Christian community, which represents approximately 2.3% of the population.[9]

3. THE FCRA: FROM REGULATORY FRAMEWORK TO INSTRUMENT OF NGO CONTROL

The Progressive Tightening of the 2010 Legislation

Christian NGOs have good reason to be concerned, as the current reform is part of a long-term trend towards increasingly restrictive regulation under the FCRA: the 2010 Act originally established a legal framework governing the receipt and use of foreign funding by individuals, associations, and non-governmental organizations engaged in non-profit activities in the cultural, economic, educational, religious, and social sectors.[10]

The new legislation requires organizations wishing to receive foreign contributions to obtain a specific registration certificate (an FCRA license) from the central government. The certificate is valid for five years and must be renewed six months before expiry. Officially, the law seeks to ensure that foreign funding does not undermine the sovereignty, security, or integrity of India. It therefore allows the suspension or cancellation of registrations in which activities are deemed contrary to the public interest. Such broadly defined objectives leave considerable room for interpretation.

The Bureaucratic Clampdown of the 2020 Reform

The 2020 amendment marked a significant bureaucratic and political tightening of government control over funds entering the country. The reform substantially increased the requirements for obtaining and maintaining licenses, notably by requiring all FCRA bank accounts to be centralized through the State Bank of India (SBI).[11] As a result, the government now enjoys direct oversight over virtually all foreign funding entering the non-profit sector. In Noel Harper v. Union of India (2022), the Supreme Court of India upheld the constitutionality of the reform, ruling that there is no fundamental right to receive foreign contributions.[12]

The Recent Acceleration of FCRA License Revocations

According to data available on the FCRA portal for the Ministry of Home Affairs (2026),[13] the pace of license cancellations has increased dramatically since 2017. Approximately 16,000 organizations currently remain registered under the FCRA, while the registrations of around 22,000 organizations have been cancelled, and a further 15,000 are considered expired. In less than a decade, nearly 37,000 organizations have therefore lost their status.

The reasons advanced for these cancellations vary, combining strict bureaucratic enforcement with broad ideological allegations. The most common justification concerns administrative shortcomings, such as tax irregularities or failures to comply with reporting requirements. Other grounds cited include involvement in “anti-development activities,” the “incitement of malicious protests,” or “forced religious conversions,” according to a public statement issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs in November 2024.[14] These measures disproportionately affect civil society organizations serving as counterweights to governmental power, particularly those working on minority rights and freedom of expression.

4. LEGAL AND POLITICAL CRITICISM OF AN AUTHORITARIAN DRIFT

This reform appears to conflict with several principles enshrined in the Indian Constitution, including the principles of equality and non-discrimination (Articles 14 and 15), freedom of association (Article 19(1)(c)), freedom of religion (Article 25), and the right to property (Article 300A).[15] Respect for these fundamental rights is also a condition underpinning cooperation between the European Union and India. As stated in Article 1 of the EU–India Cooperation Agreement, “[R]espect for human rights and democratic principles constitutes the basis of cooperation between the European Union and India and it constitutes an essential element of the Agreement.”[16] Legal experts have likewise raised the alarm. The Indian legal journal Live Law has described the proposal as “an amendment bill that seeks to transform a regulatory mechanism into a mechanism of expropriation.”[17] Similarly, the Oxford Human Rights Hub has argued that the reform forms part of a broader trend towards increasing governmental control, large-scale confiscations, and abusive expropriations.[18]

Warnings from International Bodies and Legal Experts

Given the clear threat this proposal poses to fundamental freedoms, several international human rights groups have previously expressed concern regarding the FCRA regime. As early as 2016, a joint statement by several United Nations Special Rapporteurs on human rights defenders, freedom of expression, and freedom of association called for the repeal of the legislation.[19] A 2022 report by the UN Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association similarly criticised the law. According to the report, increasing governmental control and subjecting NGOs to such legislation creates a “chilling effect” intended to suffocate civic space and suppress dissent.[20]

Condemnation by Indian Christian Leaders

The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of India immediately condemned the proposed governmental powers as “undemocratic” and contrary to the principles of natural justice.[21] Archbishop D’Souza, President of the All-India Christian Council (AICC), warned that the proposal could pave the way for the dispossession of Christian organizations under the guise of transparency and anti-conversion measures.[22] “If this law is passed, it will amount to the legalised plunder of the Indian and global Christian community,” he declared. He further described the proposal as “a direct attack on minority rights” and alleged that it reflected “a hidden agenda of the Sangh Parivar[23] aimed at taking control of Christian institutions throughout the country.”

International Concern

Concern has also been voiced internationally. Christian leaders such as Samuel Rodriguez and Johnnie Moore have called for the complete withdrawal of the bill, arguing that it jeopardies property funded by private donations from believers abroad and undermines the humanitarian and social work carried out by these institutions.[24] Some have drawn parallels with the confiscation of Jewish communal property in Europe during the 1930s and 1940s, noting that such dispossessions likewise occurred through mechanisms that initially appeared merely procedural and administrative.

CONCLUSION: A REFORM POSTPONED, BUT STILL A THREAT

The introduction of the bill generated immediate and significant opposition because of the risks it poses in terms of organized dispossession and the paralysis of civil society organizations, particularly Christian NGOs. This resistance contributed to delaying its adoption. Initially scheduled for consideration by the Lok Sabha on April 2, 2026, the bill was ultimately withdrawn following strong political pressure. According to several parliamentary sources, however, it may be reintroduced during the forthcoming monsoon session this summer. This postponement should not be interpreted as a definitive victory. Given the substantial majority enjoyed by Narendra Modi’s government in the Lok Sabha, the proposal could return at any time.

In these circumstances, continued vigilance and mobilization remain essential.

The ECLJ calls on India to:

• Abandon entirely the provisions of the 2026 amendment bill relating to the confiscation of assets and compulsory transfer of property to the State.
• Establish independent and systematic judicial oversight prior to any decision to suspend, cancel, or refuse the renewal of an FCRA license.
• Repeal immediately the retroactive provision contained in Section 16B, which is fundamentally incompatible with the principles of legal certainty and the rule of law.
• Undertake a comprehensive reform of the FCRA framework to ensure full compliance with India’s international human rights obligations, guaranteeing that financial regulation can no longer be used as a tool of religious discrimination or as a means of suffocating civil society.

___________

[1] Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2026.

[2] Live law, From Regulation To Expropriation: Draconian Provisions Of FCRA Amendment Bill, 2026.

[3] Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Compassion International forced to end Indian operations amid Government crackdown.

[4] Le Petit journal, La congrégation religieuse de Mère Teresa privée des dons de l'étranger en Inde.

[5] Induvawatch, World Vision India loses FCRA registration (The Hindu).

[6] The Wire, Union Home Ministry Cancels Christian Organization’s FCRA Licence.

[7] Business standard, Here is why Modi govt cancelled the FCRA licences of five prominent NGOs.

[8] Cath.ch, Inde : les sœurs de Mère Térésa peuvent recevoir des fonds étrangers.

[9] ECLJ, report “Anti-conversion Laws and Persecution of Christians in India”, 2025.

[10] Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010, Act No. 42 of 2010, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs.

[11] Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Rules, 2020, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Rule 6(1).

[12] Supreme Court of India, Noel Harper vs Union of India on 8 April, 2022.

[13] The online portal of FCRA services.

[14] Manorama, MHA lists out reasons behind FCRA cancellations.

[15] Constitution of India 1949 (rev. 2016).

[16] https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_93_1184.

[17] Live Law, From Regulation To Expropriation: Draconian Provisions Of FCRA Amendment Bill, 2026.

[18] Oxford Human Rights Hub, FCRA (Amendment) Bill, 2026: Increasing State-Control and Reducing Public Sphere in India.

[19] UN rights experts urge India to repeal law restricting NGO’s access to crucial foreign funding.

[20] Clement Nyaletsossi Voule (Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association), Access to resources, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/50/23 (Mar. 10, 2022).

[21] Onmanorama, CBCI flags concerns over asset takeover, executive powers in proposed FCRA Bill.

[22] The Wire, FCRA Amendment Bill is “Loot and Theft of Christian Institutions – A Sangh Parivar Agenda."

[23] The Sangh Parivar (‘Sangh family’) is a network of Hindu nationalist organizations centered around the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), a movement founded in 1925 that promotes the ideology of Hindutva (Hindu nationalism). It works to strengthen the role of Hindu identity in Indian society and politics.

[24] Dailyhunt, Donors Gave to Serve India's Poor, Not to Subsidise Indian State': US Christian Leaders Ask India to Withdraw FCRA.