Amid growing concerns over the alleged misuse of foreign contributions, including money laundering, diversion of funds, violations of declared objectives, and the use of FCRA funds for unlawful activities, the Central Government has amended the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA) Rules to strengthen financial transparency and accountability. The revised rules impose stricter monetary penalties for organisations violating prescribed norms, including the ceiling on administrative expenditure. The amendments apply uniformly to all organisations receiving foreign contributions, irrespective of religion, region, or affiliation.
Despite the amendments applying uniformly to all organisations, irrespective of religion or region, the Yuhanon Mar Diascoros, Metropolitan of the Church’s Kottayam Diocese, has voiced strong reservations.
The Metropolitan claimed that the Central Government introduced the changes without consulting stakeholders, despite earlier assurances of dialogue. Expressing concern over the revised penalty provisions, the Metropolitan argued that stringent financial penalties, even for minor lapses, would discourage and demoralise organisations engaged in charitable activities.
While the Metropolitan maintained that the Church has no objection to the scrutiny of its account books, he argued that “we are humans; hence, silly mistakes can occur. Such errors should be corrected and organisations should be permitted to move forward. Massive penalties for even small lapses are not acceptable.”
However, critics contend that such an argument tends to place inadvertent accounting errors and deliberate financial irregularities on the same footing, even though several cases involving FCRA violations have centred on alleged money laundering, diversion of foreign funds, misuse of grants, and intentional manipulation of financial records rather than mere clerical mistakes.
Linking the amendments to charitable activities, the Metropolitan claimed that they convey the message that churches and communities are no longer expected to carry out charitable work and should remain silent.
However, the amendments have no bearing on genuine charitable activities. Rather, the revised rules seek to promote greater financial accountability by encouraging organisations to maximise spending on their declared objectives while limiting administrative expenditure within the prescribed ceiling.
Critics argue that portraying the amendments as an attack on charity amounts to fearmongering among NGOs, while diverting attention from the national security concerns arising from proxy organisations that have allegedly misused foreign funds, diverted grants, and operated under the guise of charitable work.
They contend that such a defensive stand raises more questions than answers, particularly when the amendments are aimed at enhancing transparency and preventing the misuse of foreign contributions.
Although the amendments are strictly limited to ensuring financial transparency and contain no provisions interfering with the activities of NGOs receiving foreign funds, the Metropolitan claimed that they amount to interference in the affairs of the Church and society and are against the democratic fabric of the country.
The Metropolitan was referring to the recent amendments to the FCRA Rules introduced by the Union Home Ministry, which prescribe higher penalties for specified violations. Under the revised provisions, organisations spending beyond the permitted 20 per cent limit on administrative expenditure may attract a penalty of Rs 1 lakh or 5 per cent of the excess expenditure, whichever is higher.
Chief Minister V.D. Satheesan also criticised the Central Government over the amended FCRA Rules in a post on X. He described the “unilateral” changes as “highly deplorable”, stating that the amendments would threaten the functioning of voluntary organisations across the country and could severely impact educational and social service institutions, particularly those operating in remote areas of the North East.
He further alleged that the move was part of a broader RSS and its affiliated organisations attempt to target minorities. He urged the Union Government to withdraw the amendments and called upon Kerala BJP leaders and the Union Ministers from the state to intervene.
Critics argue that several NGOs in India have violated the FCRA provisions and have been barred on legal grounds from carrying out activities in the name of charity and missionary work, which are deviating from their declared objectives and clear violations as per the provisions of FCRA,
They contend that, in seeking to make a political point, the Chief Minister is effectively siding with organisations that have violated the law rather than supporting measures aimed at enhancing financial transparency and accountability.
Responding to the criticism of the FCRA amendments, BJP state president Rajeev Chandrasekhar said there was no need for concern. He stated that the regulations were intended to ensure transparency and accountability and were being applied uniformly to all organisations, irrespective of religion. He also offered to facilitate a meeting between Church representatives and the Union Home Minister if necessary.
Critics argue that several NGOs in India have violated the provisions of the FCRA and have been barred on legal grounds from carrying out activities in the name of charity and missionary work. They contend that many such organisations had deviated from their declared objectives and violated the provisions of the FCRA. They further argue that the enforcement of the Act is based on compliance with the law and has no connection with any particular religion or region.
Supporters of the amendments view the Metropolitan’s reaction as opposition to the Union Government’s efforts to strengthen financial transparency. They argue that the FCRA amendments do not warrant such criticism, particularly as they apply equally to organisations of all religions. They further contend that the Chief Minister’s criticism is politically motivated, aimed at minority appeasement rather than promoting transparency and accountability in the financial records of organisations receiving foreign contributions.
According to sources, in the last 10 years the Government has cancelled the FCRA licences of thousands of organisations found to have violated the prescribed provisions of the Act, while also providing adequate opportunities for appeals and licence renewals. Several organisations, including some operating under the guise of missionary and charitable work, have allegedly been found violating FCRA norms and operating in restricted areas of the country without obtaining the required approvals.
Critics argue that while such organisations quietly violate the law, they often resort to portraying themselves as victims and claim that the rights of religious minorities are under attack once action is initiated against them. They further point out that, instead of pursuing legal remedies before the courts or approaching the competent authorities to rectify compliance issues, some organisations launch public campaigns alleging that NGOs in India are under attack. According to these critics, this has become a familiar pattern—violate the law, claim victimhood when enforcement action follows, and portray regulatory measures as an assault on charitable or religious activities.
