Meyu Changkiri
I am not a constitutional expert, nor am I a lawyer specialising in the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act. I write as a concerned citizen who has spent many years serving people and communities in Northeast India. That experience has taught me that public administration often requires the difficult judgment of determining what response is appropriate and proportionate.
I am not asking that violations be overlooked, national security be compromised, or any institution be given preferential treatment. Foreign contributions must be regulated, organisations must be accountable, and public confidence must be protected.
My concern is a simple one: there needs to be a distinction between what is genuinely a matter of national security and what is essentially a human or procedural lapse that can be corrected.
Not Every FCRA Lapse Is a National-Security Issue
India is a sovereign country, and the Government has every right to know who receives foreign funds, where they come from and how they are used. Transparency and accountability are essential. If foreign money is deliberately misused, accounts are falsified, information is concealed, or an organisation is involved in activities that genuinely threaten the national interest, the Government must act firmly.
There may also be legitimate concerns about foreign funding being used for unlawful religious activities. If there is evidence of coercion, fraud, inducement, unlawful conversion or any other violation of Indian law, it should be investigated and dealt with according to law. No institution should expect its religious identity to place it above the law.
But a procedural violation is not necessarily a national-security issue. An institution can make an accounting error, delay a filing or misunderstand a requirement. Such matters may constitute non-compliance, but they do not by themselves establish criminal intent, misuse of funds or an anti-national purpose.
The important question is what kind of lapse it was. Was it deliberate? Was money misused? Was there repeated and wilful non-compliance? Or was it an honest and rectifiable mistake? Where the facts indicate the latter, should cancellation necessarily be the appropriate response?
As regulations become more detailed, mistakes will inevitably occur. Where an institution can correct an error and return to compliance, the law should, wherever possible, allow it to do so. Accountability should correct wrongdoing. It should not unnecessarily destroy good work.
Regulation Is Not Control
The FCRA has a legitimate regulatory purpose. It seeks transparency, accountability, lawful utilisation of foreign contributions and protection of India's national interest. Responsible institutions should welcome these objectives.
Regulation asks whether an organisation is complying with the law. The distinction becomes important when regulatory decisions are perceived to extend beyond compliance and into the substance of an institution's lawful views or activities. A democratic government has every right to regulate, while institutions must have space to ask questions and express disagreement.
The Government does not have to agree with criticism. It can challenge it and present its own facts. But criticism should not itself become evidence of wrongdoing. If an organisation violates the law, establish the violation; if it misuses foreign funds, investigate it; if there is a genuine threat to national security, act decisively.
But where an institution is otherwise carrying out legitimate work, its willingness to ask difficult questions should not automatically be treated as disloyalty. A confident Government should be able to accommodate scrutiny. Sometimes an uncomfortable question helps us see a problem more clearly.
A Concern from the Northeast
There is concern in Northeast India about the direction in which the FCRA framework is moving. I believe it deserves to be heard on its own merits. Those of us who have lived and worked here have our own experiences and our own reasons for being concerned.
The Northeast has a long history of educational institutions, hospitals, NGOs, charitable organisations and other civil-society bodies working among people, often in remote, rural and border areas.
Many contribute to healthcare, education, disaster relief and social development. I have seen enough of this work to know that its value cannot always be measured in financial statements. There are people whose lives have changed because a school was built, a hospital was available, a disaster was responded to or a community received help when it was needed.
That is why the cancellation of an institution's FCRA registration is not merely an administrative matter. It can have consequences far beyond the institution itself.
No organisation should be protected simply because it is doing good work. Good work does not place anyone above the law. But neither should an institution be presumed guilty because of its identity, religious affiliation or the suspicion surrounding its activities.
The State should regulate conduct, not suspicion; evidence, not assumption; violations, not identity. FCRA should apply equally to every legitimate organisation, irrespective of religion, denomination or social identity. If there is serious wrongdoing, action should follow, regardless of who is responsible. If there is a minor and rectifiable lapse, an opportunity for correction should be available wherever the law permits. We are not asking to be treated differently. We are asking that the law be applied fairly.
Please Consider the People Behind the Institution
Administrative decisions do not operate in a vacuum. Behind every registration, suspension or cancellation are employees, students, patients, families and communities whose lives may be affected.
Many NGOs, churches, charitable hospitals and educational institutions have contributed to nation-building for decades, often in places where government infrastructure and resources may not always be sufficient. These institutions are not substitutes for the State. But they can be valuable partners in serving the people.
If one is prevented from functioning, the consequences may not fall on the person responsible for the administrative mistake. They may fall on children, patients, families and communities who depend on its services.
Before cancelling the FCRA registration of an institution that is otherwise functioning responsibly, I believe the Government should ask a practical question: What public interest is actually achieved by shutting it down? If compliance can be secured without destroying the institution, would that not sometimes be the wiser course?
The JPC: An Opportunity for Better Legislation
The present situation gives Parliament an opportunity to examine the existing framework and the proposed changes. The Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Rules, 2026, notified on June 22, introduce more detailed requirements relating to governance, approved purposes, geographical areas of operation, utilisation and reporting. The proposed Foreign Contribution (Regulation)
Amendment Bill, 2026, now before the Joint Parliamentary Committee, goes further and proposes, among other things, a framework for the vesting, supervision, management and disposal of foreign contribution and assets when an organisation ceases to have an FCRA certificate. The Bill was referred to the JPC on August 12. (PRS Legislative Research)
The Government's objectives are understandable. Greater transparency and oversight are necessary, and responsible organisations should have no difficulty accepting them.
The JPC is important. It can hear witnesses, examine evidence, question officials, consider practical consequences and suggest improvements. There is no loss of face in improving legislation after parliamentary scrutiny. There is no weakness in accepting a good suggestion. In fact, that is how good legislation is made.
I hope the JPC will look not only at what powers the Government should have, but also at how those powers will work in practice and what safeguards are needed.
The Greater the Consequence, the Greater the Safeguard
This becomes especially important in relation to the proposed provisions concerning foreign-funded assets. The Bill proposes provisions relating to the provisional vesting, management, restoration and, in specified circumstances, permanent vesting and disposal of foreign-funded assets following cessation of an FCRA certificate. The proposed Designated Authority would have powers concerning the vesting, supervision, management and disposal of such assets. (PRS Legislative Research)
I understand why the Government would want clarity about what happens to foreign-funded assets when an organisation loses its FCRA status. That is legitimate. But when the consequences are significant, the safeguards must also be strong.
An institution may have spent decades building a school, hospital or other public facility. If it later faces a regulatory problem, the response should consider the nature of the violation, its record and the people who depend upon its work. The greater the consequence of a regulatory decision, the greater the care that should precede it.
A Principle That Should Outlast Governments
Governments change. Majorities change. Circumstances change. But powers created by the State remain. A power established today may be exercised differently tomorrow, and the precedent remains. So perhaps one question is worth asking before giving any Government a very broad power: Would we be comfortable if every future Government exercised that same power in the same way?
If the answer is yes, perhaps we have established a sound principle. If we are uncertain, perhaps we should pause and think again.
It is a question of institutional wisdom.
Before the Final Decision
The Government has the mandate and the authority to act. I respect that. With authority comes responsibility. The Government must protect national security, regulate foreign contributions and act against deliberate wrongdoing. These are not matters in dispute.
What I am asking is that the response be proportionate to the violation. If an organisation deliberately misuses foreign funds, the Government should act firmly. If there is foreign interference or a genuine national-security concern, the State must protect the country. But if the matter is a minor, inadvertent and correctable procedural lapse, the institution should, wherever the law permits, be given a reasonable opportunity to put it right.
That is not a request for leniency. It is a request for proportion.
The Government has the power to make this regulatory framework stronger. It also has the opportunity to make it wiser. India needs regulation that is firm enough to protect the nation, transparent enough to command public confidence and fair enough to correct mistakes.
Governments will change. Majorities will change. But the institutions of the Republic will remain, and so will the laws and precedents we create today.
Let us therefore use public power carefully - not merely to enforce the law, but to strengthen the rule of law; not merely to correct institutions, but to preserve those that can correct themselves; and not merely to protect the State, but also to protect the citizens whom the State exists to serve.
That, in my humble view, is not weakness. It is good governance. And it is the kind of statesmanship that will serve the country well beyond the present moment.
