Verghese V Joseph –
The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of India (CBCI) on Friday mounted a wide-ranging intervention before the Union Home Ministry, urging a rethink on the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill (FCRA), 2026, warning against vague regulatory language, retrospective asset controls, and the broader climate of insecurity facing Christian minorities and displaced communities in Manipur.
The appeal comes against the backdrop of a Bill introduced in the Lok Sabha on March 25, 2026, which proposes a new framework for vesting foreign-funded assets in a government-designated authority when FCRA registration is cancelled, surrendered, or deemed to have ceased.
In a strongly worded but carefully framed memorandum to Union Home Minister Amit Shah, the CBCI has raised serious objections to the proposed FCRA Bill, 2026, the newly notified amendment rules, and what it described as a widening pattern of legal and humanitarian pressures affecting Christian communities and vulnerable populations.
The memorandum, signed by CBCI president Anthony Cardinal Poola and secretary general Archbishop Anil Couto, positions the Church not as an adversary of regulation, but as a long-standing development partner of the Indian state. It argues that Catholic institutions working in education, healthcare, social development, tribal welfare, rural outreach, disaster response and humanitarian service have served communities across religious and caste lines for decades, often in regions where state capacity is thin or uneven.
At the heart of the CBCI’s submission is the contention that the FCRA amendment architecture, in its present form, goes far beyond improving compliance and transparency. The bishops’ conference says the draft law and rules may end up undermining charitable institutions that were built lawfully over decades and on which large populations depend for schooling, medical care, shelter, social support and community stability.
The concern is not without context. The Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2026, introduced in the Lok Sabha on March 25, seeks to amend the 2010 law that governs the acceptance and use of foreign contributions by individuals, associations and companies. Among its most significant changes is the creation of a “Designated Authority” that would provisionally take control of foreign contributions and assets created from such funds in cases where an organisation’s registration is cancelled, surrendered, or lapses through non-renewal or refusal of renewal.
The Bill also expands the concept of “key functionary,” introduces a formal mechanism for the cessation of certificates, allows permanent vesting of certain assets in the Designated Authority if registration is not restored within a prescribed period, and permits those assets to be transferred to government entities or disposed of, with sale proceeds credited to the Consolidated Fund of India. It further reduces the maximum imprisonment for contravention from five years to one year, while requiring prior approval of the Central Government before any investigation for an offence under the Act can begin.
The government’s stated rationale is that the amendments are meant to plug operational and legal gaps in the existing regime, especially in relation to asset management after cancellation or cessation of registration, and to improve transparency, accountability and administrative clarity. The statement of objects and reasons attached to the Bill says the current framework has led to uncertainty, implementation challenges and scope for misuse. It also notes that around 16,000 associations are registered under the Act and receive about Rs 22,000 crore annually.
But the CBCI’s reading is markedly different. Its memorandum argues that the proposed changes are contrary to constitutional principles of compassion and welfare, especially where they affect institutions serving the poor and vulnerable. The conference has called for the withdrawal of both the Bill and the amendment rules in their present form and has suggested that any redrafted law should be prospective, not retrospective, and should contain saving clauses, transitional arrangements, constitutional safeguards and fair procedural protections.
That demand for prospectivity goes to the core of the Church’s apprehension. The Bill contains a provision stating that assets and foreign contributions already vested under the old framework would, from the commencement of the amendment law, be deemed to have vested provisionally in the new Designated Authority. For the CBCI, this creates the danger that institutions which acquired, built and managed assets in good faith under earlier legal arrangements could suddenly find themselves exposed to a new and more intrusive regime.
The bishops have also objected to the concentration of power in an executive-designated authority. They want adjudicatory functions under the Act to be entrusted instead to a judicial officer functioning under the supervisory jurisdiction of the concerned High Court, arguing that independence, impartiality and adherence to natural justice cannot be left to administrative design alone. While the Bill provides an appeal to a District Judge within 90 days against orders of the Designated Authority, the CBCI insists that vesting, transfer or disposal of assets should occur only after adjudication is complete and statutory appeals are exhausted.
Another point of friction is proportionality. The CBCI has argued that the law should distinguish between minor and major violations, saying technical lapses or meagre financial irregularities should not trigger the extreme consequences of cancellation, non-renewal or confiscation. In the conference’s view, permanent seizure or vesting of assets should be confined to proven grave violations involving national security concerns or deliberate and established fraud.
The Bill’s broad definition of “key functionary” has also drawn criticism. The text includes directors, partners, trustees, office-bearers, members of governing bodies and “any other officer or person” who has control over or responsibility for management or affairs of the organisation. The CBCI says this sweep is excessive and should be narrowed to members of the governing body or trustees alone.
Perhaps the most politically sensitive objection in the memorandum concerns the term “proselytization” in the amendment rules. The CBCI says its inclusion without definition creates room for misuse and risks conflating charitable, educational, healthcare and humanitarian work by faith-based organisations with allegations of religious conversion. The conference argues that such language has no place in FCRA-linked regulation and degrades service activities that are directed toward public welfare and nation-building.
The memorandum does not stop with the FCRA regime. It links the proposed changes to a larger constitutional anxiety over freedom of religion and the legal position of religious minorities of Scheduled Caste origin. The CBCI says state-level Freedom of Religion laws, often described by critics as anti-conversion laws, have coincided with increased allegations, intimidation and hostility directed at Christians in some states. It also points to the long-pending challenge to the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, which excludes Dalit Christians and Dalit Muslims from Scheduled Caste status, and says the prolonged pendency of these matters before the Supreme Court has produced uncertainty and injustice.
In effect, the conference is framing the current moment as one in which regulatory pressure, social suspicion and unresolved constitutional litigation are converging on minority communities. Its request to the Home Minister is not merely legislative; it is also institutional. The CBCI wants steps to facilitate expeditious hearing of cases involving freedom of religion and Scheduled Caste status for religious minorities, saying millions remain affected by unresolved questions of equality, dignity and legal protection.
The memorandum’s final major pillar is Manipur, where the Church says the humanitarian crisis remains among the gravest challenges facing the nation. The bishops describe a state in which thousands of farming families have lost access to agricultural land and plantations, once self-reliant households have become dependent on relief, and students have seen severe educational disruption due to displacement, insecurity, financial stress and damage to institutions.
While the memorandum itself provides no statistical annexure, its language reflects an attempt to keep national attention focused on the continuing distress in the state and on secondary migration out of Manipur to places such as Delhi in search of safety, schooling and livelihood. The CBCI says the trauma has affected children, women, the elderly, clergy and religious personnel, with continuing psychological, emotional and spiritual consequences. It has appealed for immediate intervention by the Union government, especially the Home Ministry, to restore lasting peace, harmony and normalcy.
The political significance of the memorandum lies partly in its tone. It is neither confrontational nor muted. Instead, it uses the language of constitutional partnership, repeatedly affirming the Church’s commitment to India’s unity, integrity and secular framework, while warning that poorly framed law can produce irreversible harm. That formulation is strategic. By acknowledging the government’s legitimate interest in transparency, accountability and national security, the CBCI seeks to avoid the impression that it is resisting oversight per se. Its argument is that regulation must not become indistinguishable from dispossession or suspicion.
The wider debate over the FCRA amendment is likely to sharpen as Parliament and civil society examine its implications. PRS Legislative Research has noted that the Bill would replace the existing framework on management of foreign contribution and assets with a more structured vesting regime under a Designated Authority, while also broadening prohibitions and creating new compliance consequences for organisations whose registrations lapse or are not renewed in time.
For Church-run institutions, and indeed for many non-profit bodies beyond the Christian community, the issue is existential as much as legal. If asset control can shift to the state before final adjudication, if retrospective exposure remains possible, and if undefined terms in subordinate rules can shape enforcement, then the compliance burden may spill over into a climate of deterrence. In that event, the cost would not be borne only by institutions, but by the poor, patients, students and displaced families who rely on them.
For now, the CBCI has chosen the formal democratic route: a memorandum to the Home Minister, an appeal to constitutional principle, and a call for legislative reconsideration before administrative power hardens into irreversible fact. Whether the government reopens consultation, modifies the proposed law, or stands by its framework may determine not only the future of faith-based charities under FCRA, but also the tenor of state-civil society relations in a fraught political season.