Opposition seeks scrapping or JPC review of FCRA Amendment Bill

Opposition parties have demanded that the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2026, be either withdrawn entirely or referred to a Joint Committee of Parliament (JPC) for detailed scrutiny. The Bill is expected to come up for debate in Parliament next week, although the government has not yet officially listed it in the tentative business agenda.

According to sources, the INDIA bloc will meet on Monday, August 10, 2026, to finalise its strategy for opposing the legislation. The Congress has issued a whip to its MPs in both Houses, asking them to be present on August 10, 11, and 12, describing these days as “very important” for discussions.

The Congress has also linked the debate on the Bill to a statement from Home Minister Amit Shah on the police action against student protesters at Jantar Mantar. Congress general secretary (communications) Jairam Ramesh said, “A statement by the Home Minister on the police brutalities and excessive use of force on students protesting at Jantar Mantar is a precursor to a discussion on any Bill in both Houses of Parliament.”

Congress general secretary (organisation) K.C. Venugopal said the party would oppose the Bill and would not allow it to be passed amid disruptions. He alleged that the government was bringing the Bill to target NGOs and minorities, while allowing organisations like the RSS, which is not registered under FCRA, to continue receiving foreign funding.

Opposition leaders also questioned Mizoram Chief Minister Lalduhoma’s announcement that the Bill would be taken up on August 12, the penultimate day of the Monsoon Session. They noted that the government’s tentative business schedule does not mention the FCRA Bill, and there has been no official confirmation from the Union government.

Trinamool Congress Rajya Sabha floor leader Derek O’Brien said the Bill must be opposed because it is aimed at targeting NGOs and institutions. He criticised the Home Minister for not coming to the House, saying, “The Home Minister, instead of coming to the House, is sitting in his office and doing photo-op meetings.” He also questioned why there should be a separate set of rules for the RSS. Referring to Mr. Lalduhoma’s announcement, Mr. O’Brien said it was “demeaning Parliament” and showed a complete breakdown of communication between the government and the Opposition.

In a meeting with Home Minister Amit Shah on Thursday, DMK Rajya Sabha leader P. Wilson, who is also chairman of the Joint Action Forum on Minorities, submitted a memorandum detailing concerns about the Bill. His principal objection is that the Bill converts a regulatory regime into a confiscatory one. The memorandum points out that under the proposed legislation, if an FCRA certificate is cancelled, surrendered or lapses automatically, foreign contributions and all assets created from them would vest in a government-appointed “designated authority” without a prior hearing or judicial determination.

The memorandum further states that if a fresh certificate is not obtained within a prescribed period, the assets could be sold or transferred to a government department, with the proceeds going to the Consolidated Fund of India. The existing right to reclaim assets upon re-registration would be removed, and the founding institution would be permanently barred from reacquiring them.

Mr. Wilson argued that the impact would ultimately be felt not by FCRA beneficiaries alone, but also by patients receiving treatment in hospitals funded through foreign contributions, students studying in institutions dependent on such funding, and elderly people in care homes. “Where will the government find money to pay the teachers in such schools, or hire doctors for a leprosy home? This harms the people who are benefiting from institutions receiving foreign funds,” he said.

The DMK leader said the Bill should either be withdrawn in its entirety or referred to a JPC for further review. The Opposition’s demand for a JPC reference reflects a broader concern about the lack of consultation and the potential consequences of the proposed changes on civil society organisations and the communities they serve.