The journey of India’s Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA), from a law meant to shield domestic politics from foreign influence to one being weaponised to reprimand civil society, reveals a striking truth about India today.
Enacted in 1976 during the Emergency era, FCRA’s primary targets were political parties and electoral processes. In contrast, non-governmental organisations operated with relative freedom. This balance shifted in 1984. Through an ordinance, NGOs were ushered into the Act’s ambit and subjected to mandatory registration with the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) instead of development ministries. This was not a mere administrative shift; it recast civil societies as potential security threats.
The next major transformation came in 2010 when the 1976 law was replaced with a new FCRA.
While the earlier Act focused on the “values of a sovereign democratic republic,” the 2010 legislation was premised on preventing activities “detrimental to national interest.”
This law expanded state control over foreign funding to NGOs, requiring prior registration, periodic renewal, and compliance with increasingly burdensome obligations. The MHA was given sweeping powers to suspend or cancel FCRA registrations, rendering organisations ineligible for foreign funding for years.
Ironically, as regulatory scrutiny on NGOs intensified, political parties were gradually removed from the FCRA’s purview.
In 2014, the Delhi High Court found both the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the Indian National Congress (INC) guilty of accepting foreign funds and violating FCRA. However, instead of seeking accountability, the Indian Parliament responded with more amendments in 2016, further exempting political parties from any kind of scrutiny.
The 2018 amendment went further, applying this exemption retrospectively to 1976. This effectively insulated political parties from any legal consequences for past violations and, crucially, decimating the Delhi High Court’s judgment.
The result is an institutional hypocrisy that cannot be ignored.
Political parties, originally the central concern of the FCRA, now operate with significantly relaxed oversight on its funding, while NGOs face a draconian regime. Since 2010, the Act has been amended multiple times (notably in 2016, 2018, and 2020) and now awaits another amendment in 2026.
The latest FCRA amendment marks an even more alarming escalation.
By empowering a “designated authority” to take over, manage, and dispose of the assets of NGOs whose licences have been suspended or cancelled, the state is moving from regulation to direct appropriation.
This is particularly troubling in a context where over 21,900 organisations have already lost their licences, many of whom have challenged these actions in courts. Research conducted by Amnesty International shows that these constellations often take place on vague or overboard grounds, largely targeting organisations working on minority rights, right to freedom of expression, environmental rights and climate actions.
The irony cannot be starker — the very actors who were once subjected to FCRA now preside over its most aggressive enforcement against civil society and dissent.
This increasingly stringent regime has not gone unnoticed internationally.
In 2016, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and association raised concerns with the Indian government. The communication highlighted that access to foreign funding is an integral aspect of the right to freedom of association, and that restrictions must meet the tests of legality, necessity, and proportionality.
The Rapporteur concluded that FCRA failed to meet these thresholds. Subsequent communications by special rapporteurs have only sharpened this critique.
The Financial Action Task Force, in its 2024 mutual evaluation of India, found the country only “partially compliant” with its standards on protecting the non-profit sector from abuse. It flagged that the successive amendments to FCRA are not sufficiently risk-based, impose disproportionate compliance burdens, and have been implemented without adequate consultation with the civil society. Crucially, it warned against the harassment and intimidation of civil society under the pretext of national security.
Yet, despite judicial reprimand, constitutional guarantees, and sustained international criticism, the Indian government has continued to push through these measures without any consultation with civil society and without producing credible evidence of the threats it claims to address.
Amendments are introduced and passed by bulldozing political opposition and without regard to any form of dissent. This is not the functioning of a state anchored in the rule of law, regard for accountability. It reflects a frightening consolidation of unchecked executive power, where laws are passed under the guise of regulation and oversight but in reality, they are ever-sharpening tools of repression. One is then left to ask: what kind of democracy operates this way and what has it begun to resemble?
Aakar Patel is a columnist, author, and the chair of the Board of Amnesty International India.
Views expressed are the author’s own.