Meyu Changkiri
There are times when a public issue needs to be debated openly. There are also times when it needs something more - careful thought, responsible participation and a willingness to listen to different experiences. The Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2026 has now reached such a stage. Its referral to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) is a welcome development. It gives Parliament an opportunity to examine the proposed changes more closely and to hear from those who may be affected by them.
The concerns surrounding the proposed amendments are national in character. Long-established institutions, civil-society organisations and other stakeholders from different parts of the country have raised questions about their possible implications. The Northeast now has an important opportunity to bring its own perspective, particularly on constitutional safeguards, the realities of remote and underserved communities, and the role of institutions that have long contributed to education, healthcare and social welfare.
The discussion, therefore, should not be seen simply as a matter concerning organisations that receive foreign contributions. It also raises wider questions about regulation, due process, proportionality and how laws operate in the diverse circumstances of India.
The Opportunity Cannot Be Taken for Granted
The referral of the Bill to the JPC should not make us feel that the matter has now been taken care of. In fact, this is when responsible engagement becomes more important. Public attention naturally moves from one issue to another.
In recent months, the country and the region have witnessed difficult developments - the massive landslides and floods in Assam and other parts of the Northeast and in Nepal, the continuing consequences of the conflict in Manipur, the passing of eminent personalities and various political developments. These matters deserve our attention. At the same time, they can cause other important matters before Parliament to gradually disappear from public discussion.
The FCRA Bill should not become one of them.
The JPC has a defined mandate and timetable. It has been asked to submit its report by the last day of the first week of the Winter Session of Parliament in 2026, and comprises 31 members, 21 from the Lok Sabha and 10 from the Rajya Sabha. (Parliamentary record, August 2026)
This makes the present period important. What needs to be studied should be studied now. What needs to be documented should be documented now. Where there are constitutional questions, competent legal experts should examine them. Where institutions believe their work may be affected, they should provide evidence of the likely consequences. And where practical alternatives are available, those alternatives should be placed before the Committee. This is not a call for confrontation. It is a call to participate seriously in the parliamentary process that has been opened.
State Governments Have a Responsibility
The Union Government has every right to regulate foreign contributions. Transparency, accountability and compliance with the law are essential. No institution should seek exemption from legitimate scrutiny merely because it performs social, religious or charitable work. At the same time, regulation should take account of the circumstances in which different organisations operate and the consequences that may follow when registration is cancelled, surrendered or not renewed.
State Governments are in a position to help Parliament understand these consequences. They can document the number and nature of schools, hospitals, welfare institutions, community programmes and other public-serving institutions that rely, wholly or partly, on foreign contributions. They can also assess the services provided and the communities that depend upon them.
This is particularly relevant in the Northeast. Difficult terrain, scattered settlements and limited connectivity mean that government services do not always reach every community with the same ease. Churches, charitable institutions, voluntary organisations and community bodies have, over many years, contributed to education, healthcare, relief and social welfare. This does not place such institutions above the law. It simply means that Parliament should have the facts before deciding how the law should operate.
The Northeast Should Be Heard
The JPC should consider holding consultations in the Northeast, perhaps in Shillong, Aizawl or Kohima. Such a consultation would allow the Committee to hear directly from State Governments, legislators, institutions, community organisations and legal experts who understand the region's particular circumstances. This should not be regarded as asking for special treatment. India is a diverse country, and good legislation benefits from hearing how its provisions may work in different parts of the country.
The States should therefore prepare their submissions carefully and independently, supported by credible information and sound legal reasoning. Where there are common concerns, a regional perspective may be useful. But each State should also explain its own circumstances.
Nagaland's Constitutional Position
For Nagaland, there is an additional constitutional question that deserves careful examination. Article 371A provides special protection concerning, among other matters, the ownership and transfer of land and its resources in Nagaland. Parliamentary legislation relating to these matters does not apply to Nagaland unless the Nagaland Legislative Assembly so decides by resolution. (Constitution of India, Article 371A)
The proposed FCRA amendments include provisions concerning the vesting, management and disposal of certain assets connected with foreign contribution when an organisation's registration is cancelled, surrendered or not renewed. The Bill proposes a Designated Authority for this purpose. (Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2026)
This raises a question that deserves a proper legal answer. If an FCRA-registered organisation operates a school, hospital or community institution on land governed by Nagaland's constitutional and customary framework, what would be the legal implications if a Central authority were to take custody of, manage or dispose of such property?
This should not become a political confrontation. It should be examined constitutionally and with due care. The Government of Nagaland should consider placing before the JPC a considered legal memorandum on the interaction between the proposed FCRA provisions and Article 371A. The forthcoming session of the Nagaland Legislative Assembly provides an appropriate opportunity for elected representatives to study the matter and, where necessary, communicate the State's considered position. The objective should not be confrontation or exemption.
Smaller Organisations Also Matter
Not every organisation receiving foreign contributions operates on a large scale. Some work in a few villages or serve relatively small communities. Their financial resources may be modest while their contribution may be meaningful. The Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Rules, 2026 provide a Rs 10 lakh threshold relating to utilisation of foreign contribution over the preceding two financial years for determining “reasonable activity.” (Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Rules, 2026)
The practical effect of this requirement should be examined carefully. In remote and economically weaker areas, an organisation may operate genuinely and effectively with a comparatively small budget. The purpose of regulation should be to distinguish genuine activity from misuse or inactivity. It should not unintentionally discourage legitimate small-scale service. Accountability is important, but proportionality is important too.
Geographical Boundaries Should Not Become Human Boundaries
Another practical question concerns the requirement to specify the States or Union Territories in which an organisation proposes to undertake its activities. The intention of bringing greater geographical clarity and accountability is understandable. But India is also a country where people regularly cross State boundaries for education, healthcare, employment and other legitimate reasons.
Consider a simple example. An orphanage in Nagaland may have a child under its care who is studying in Tamil Nadu. If the child's education, accommodation or other legitimate expenses are supported by the Nagaland organisation, would that expenditure be regarded as an activity outside its permitted geographical area merely because the child is studying in another State?
A similar question may arise when a patient from Nagaland travels to Chennai for specialised treatment, or when a beneficiary attends a training or educational programme outside the State. The organisation may remain based in Nagaland. Its purpose may remain unchanged. Its beneficiary may remain under its care. Only the place where a particular service is received has changed.
The JPC should therefore consider whether the framework should clearly distinguish between an organisation establishing or conducting activities in another State and an organisation legitimately supporting an individual beneficiary who, for genuine educational, medical or other reasons, is outside the State in which the organisation is registered.
Geographical clarity is useful for accountability. But geographical boundaries should not unintentionally become human boundaries.
Let the Law Be Strong and Fair
Those who have concerns about the Bill should also be prepared to suggest practical solutions. Where a compliance deficiency is minor and capable of correction, there should be a reasonable opportunity to rectify it before consequences that may permanently affect an institution and the people it serves.
The proposed provisions concerning assets also deserve careful examination. Questions concerning ownership, the source of assets, procedural safeguards, judicial oversight and access to effective remedies should be considered before the legislation is finalised. The Bill provides for an appeal to the District Judge against an order of the Designated Authority. The adequacy of the procedure and the time available to pursue a remedy deserve particular consideration for organisations functioning in remote areas. (Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2026)
If the intention is that the proposed asset-related provisions should not operate retrospectively, it would also be preferable for that protection to be clearly reflected in the legislation itself. These are not arguments against regulation. They are suggestions for making regulation clearer, fairer and more workable.
Why Should Citizens Care?
It may be easy to think that FCRA concerns only NGOs, churches or organisations receiving foreign contributions. But the matter is wider. A school supported by an organisation may educate children whose families have nothing to do with its funding arrangements. A hospital may treat patients irrespective of their faith or background. A welfare programme may assist a family in difficulty. A community organisation may respond when disaster strikes.
The beneficiaries may never think about FCRA.
That is why citizens should take an interest in how the law is framed. This does not mean institutions should be protected from scrutiny. They must be transparent and accountable. Foreign contributions must be properly received, used and reported. Where there is wrongdoing, the law should act.
But the manner in which the law responds also matters. A good regulatory system should be firm against misuse and fair towards genuine activity. It should protect the national interest without unnecessarily weakening institutions that are serving the public.
A Shared Responsibility
The Union Government, State Governments, legislators, institutions and citizens each have a part to play. The Union Government has a legitimate responsibility to regulate foreign contributions and protect national interests. State Governments have a responsibility to represent their people and uphold constitutional safeguards. Legislators have a responsibility to examine the proposed law carefully. Organisations receiving foreign contributions have a responsibility to comply with the law.
These responsibilities need not be in conflict. Members of Parliament can be properly briefed. State Governments can provide data and legal opinions. Institutions can document their work. Civil-society and community organisations can make constructive submissions. The parliamentary process is strengthened when those who participate come prepared with facts and practical proposals.
The Time to Engage Is Now
The forthcoming session of the Nagaland Legislative Assembly is therefore timely. It provides an opportunity to examine the implications of the proposed amendments for Nagaland, particularly in relation to Article 371A, and to encourage informed engagement with the JPC.
The same spirit should extend across the Northeast and beyond. The Northeast does not need to ask for special privilege. Nor should it hesitate to speak when there are legitimate constitutional and practical questions. At the same time, the wider country should recognise that these are not merely regional concerns. They are questions about how legislation should work in a diverse constitutional democracy.
The referral of the Bill to the JPC should be regarded neither as a victory for one side nor as a defeat for another. It is an opportunity within the parliamentary process.
But opportunities have their own timelines. There will always be other events demanding our attention. There will be political developments, public tragedies, social tensions and matters of immediate urgency. That is the nature of public life. Yet legislation also moves according to its own timetable.
Once the JPC completes its examination and submits its report, an important opportunity for stakeholders to influence that stage of the process will have passed. What needs to be said should therefore be said now. What needs to be studied should be studied now. What evidence needs to be gathered should be gathered now. And where constructive alternatives are available, they should be placed before the JPC now.
For Nagaland, this means giving serious attention to Article 371A. For the Northeast, it means presenting the realities of institutions working in education, healthcare, welfare and community development. For India, it means asking how regulation can be strong without becoming disproportionate, and how accountability can be maintained alongside fairness and due process.
The Government has opened the door to further parliamentary examination. Let us use that opportunity responsibly. The objective should not simply be to win an argument. It should be to help produce a law that is fair, workable, constitutionally sound and in the larger interest of the people. That responsibility belongs to all of us.
And that is why the Northeast and India must speak now.
