If money comes into the country for public work, it can't be untouched because its called charity. But a more difficult question before Parliament is posed by the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2026, regarding what should happen to a hospital, school or other institution with foreign funding, if the entity that operates it fails to maintain its FCRA registration?

It will be the focus of the Joint Parliamentary Committee's next meeting on September 29. The panel led by Sanjay Jaiswal, comprising 31 members, was briefed at its first meeting on September 18, by the Home Ministry. The State Bank of India (SBI) chairman C S Setty, Attorney General Tushar Mehta and legal experts will be expected to help it in its detailed study of the financial and legal aspects of the bill. Their evidence is important because the proposed law extends beyond the transfer of money into assets, and the future use of assets.

The proposal is for foreign contributions and assets derived from the same to be provisionally held in a government-appointed Designated Authority at the time the registration of an organisation lapses. Those assets could be supervised or managed by the authority and, in certain cases, vested for the benefit of the authority and disposed of. The money received from the sale or unused foreign contributions would be deposited to Consolidated Fund of India.

The bill allows an appeal to a district judge of an order of the authority. Legislative researchers at PRS India, however, find a significant lacuna in the bills as well as in the existing law: There is no provision for an appeal in case the Centre refuses to extend an FCRA certificate. Therefore, a renewal decision could initiate an asset process even before the organization has had an appeal regarding that decision.

A fair hearing for the Centre's case. Foreign funds can be influential as well as benevolent. India has good grounds to demand traceable banking paths, correct records and action where donations are used for something other than their stated goal. The changes "fill out the lack in the management of foreign-funded assets following the expiration of the registration," the government says.

It also states that the proposed authority would not be responsible for an organisation's property but rather for assets that have been raised with foreign funding. It's the view that the rules should be the same for everybody in a community. This is a big charge for the committee to vet against the verbiage of the bill and how it would work on the ground.

Careful drafting is a requirement in the economic interest of the scale of the sector. The figures submitted to the committee show that foreign contributions totaled around ₹22,974 crore in 2024–25 as compared to ₹17,832 crore in 2015–16, and the number of FCRA-registered organisations has drastically reduced over a period of 10 years. That's money allocated for work in education, health and other services, but a total receipt amount does not reflect on the efficiency of spending any project's money. Nor does a decline in registration alone indicate general violations and/or inequitable enforcement. Parliament should have the “how” of the changes before it makes a conclusion.

Uncertainty has costs, which don't show in a donation account, for a working institution. Teachers are to be paid by a school during the academic year. Medicines, equipment and staff need to be available to patients during a clinic. Until a court rules on who was right and wrong, services may be disrupted if there is a dispute regarding the control of its building or accounts. Such ambiguity might make a responsible donor apprehensive about a project that takes a long time. These are risks that are anticipated in the business and service, and are not a reason for an organisation to retain money once it has been established that it has committed a proven violation.

The committee needs to then advocate for differences the law can be applied to. Causing serious misconduct or voluntary surrender and non-renewal following an application which has been disputed are separate occurrences. They do not automatically apply to property used for public purposes. MPs should question the process by which the portion financed with foreign funds would be identified if there was Indian funding as well, what would happen if there were a hearing before the change of control, and how staff, patients and students would be protected during the appeal. The sale of any asset must be rigorously assessed in terms of necessity, valuation and disclosure.

There's a political aspect, but it cannot overpower the legal aspect. Opposition members and civil society groups worry about the powers being exercised in various ways, including against minority institutions. The government denies it is targeting a community in the bill. These roles are not to be filled with assurances and suspicions. A published criteria, a reasoned order and a usable route of appeal would provide something that the public and regulated organisations could rely on for a point of reference when making their judgement.

The rest of the world will be watching, as well. The government shouldn't let donors set the agenda for its own priorities. Likewise, international partnerships can rely on its confidence due to predictability and independent review of rules. Firm regulation and due process are mutually reinforcing: the former will aid national decision-making, and the latter will render the enforcement credible.

The JPC is in a favorable position to change an exact dispute into an exact law. It should define the mechanisms by which funds are tracked, how violations can be established, and how the public-serving asset can continue to provide services to people even after the operator no longer has permission to receive foreign funds.