FCRA: an unconstitutional plunder

 Interview with a Christian missionary

 Fr Dr Jose D. Maliekal SDB has served for over three decades in social action and educational ministries in India, running schools and outreach programmes for the marginalized, drawing from Gospel values of service and justice. As he responds to this Interview on FCRA, he foregrounds the deep apprehensions among Catholics and other minorities regarding constitutional overreach and potential government takeover of our institutions.

How do you interpret the intent behind India’s FCRA regulations? Do you see them as justified?

The FCRA aims to regulate foreign funding to prevent misuse for non-humanitarian purposes, which is justifiable in principle to ensure national security. However, recent 2026 amendments expand government powers excessively, allowing license denials and asset seizures without due process, seen by many Catholics as executive overreach violating Article 26 on religious freedoms.

 How does this Act affect Christianity in India? Do you think the primary target of FCRA is Christianity in India?

FCRA severely hampers Christian NGOs by blocking foreign aid essential for our work, leading to over 70% of religious NGOs losing registration and ceasing operations. While not explicitly targeting Christianity, its disproportionate effect on faith-based groups fuels fears among minorities that it indirectly curtails evangelization and service.

Where do you draw the line between humanitarian work and faith-based outreach? Should the two be separated?

 For us missionaries, humanitarian aid is inseparable from faith—service to the poor embodies Christ's love, as in Matthew 25. Forcing separation would sterilize our work, ignoring how faith motivates charity; regulation should respect this integral link without suspicion.

 Have the FCRA restrictions tangibly affected schools, hospitals, social initiatives, etc run by your congregation or the Church in general?

Yes, restrictions have closed clinics in tribal areas and slashed school scholarships, with my congregation losing funds for remote Andhra Pradesh and Telangana projects. This disrupts education for Dalit children and healthcare for the poor, heightening minority fears of institutional erosion.

 How has the ban on transferring funds between NGOs altered grassroots work, especially in remote or marginalised communities?

The sub-granting ban prevents channelling resources to local grassroots partners, crippling work in marginalized villages where we lack direct presence. Remote communities now face abandoned wells and orphanages, amplifying Catholic concerns over diluted federalism and near-strangulating state control.

 Why, according to you, did Indian government choose to restrict the good works done by groups for the marginalised people by enacting legislations like FCRA?

 The government cites curbing conversions and foreign influence, but we see it as politically motivated to nationalize charity under majoritarian narratives. This restricts good works for Dalits, Adivasis, labourers and other marginalised groups, betraying constitutional secularism and minority protections. In effect, these restrictions are directed towards negating the agency at various levels of the Subaltern groups and homogenizing them, under the Hindutva agenda.

What concerns you most about the proposed provisions allowing government control over NGO assets?

 Most alarming is the power to seize assets upon license expiry, even without wrongdoing, enabling arbitrary takeovers of schools and hospitals built over generations. Catholics fear this as unconstitutional plunder, undermining Article 30, which ensures rights to manage minority institutions.

As a missionary, do you feel your work is being misunderstood in today’s political climate?

Absolutely, in today's climate, our service is branded as "conversion tactics," ignoring decades of selfless aid. This politicization breeds hostility, with minorities dreading surveillance and shutdowns as preludes to state domination.

 If service becomes suspect and charity becomes regulated, what happens to the moral imagination of a society?

 Regulated charity turns compassion into bureaucracy, suspecting givers and eroding trust. Society loses its ethical core, whereas voluntary service fosters solidarity. Minorities worry that recent Amendments to FCRA paves for authoritarian control over civil space.

Do you see this moment as a crisis or an opportunity for the Church in India to redefine its role?

 This is a profound crisis threatening our prophetic role, but it calls the Church to self-reliance, local funding, and bolder advocacy for justice. By highlighting overreach, we can rally for constitutional safeguards protecting all minorities. Let me give certain pertinent details: 

Recent Advocacy on 2026 Amendments

 CBCI has publicly opposed 2026 FCRA Bill provisions for executive overreach and asset seizures, urging review without filing suits yet; experts anticipate writ petitions under Articles 14, 26, 30, and 300A in High Courts or Supreme Court. No major Catholic-led suits against 2026 changes are reported as of March 2026, shifting to advocacy amid fears of minority institution takeovers.

CBCI has raised strong objections to the 2026 FCRA Bill, viewing its provisions as a direct threat to minority rights and institutional autonomy. Their arguments center on executive overreach and violations of constitutional protections for religious communities.

Undue Interference in Minority Institutions

CBCI argues the Bill enables "undue interference" in Catholic schools, hospitals, and social centers by empowering the government to dictate operations and staffing, contravening Article 30's guarantee of minority rights to administer educational institutions. They highlight how vague "national interest" criteria could politicize oversight, targeting faith-based groups disproportionately.

Asset Seizure Powers

 A core concern is the provision for automatic asset forfeiture upon FCRA license cancellation or expiry, even without proven violations, labeling it "dangerous overreach" that risks state takeover of properties built through decades of charity. This, CBCI contends, breaches Article 300A's right to property and Article 26's freedom to manage religious affairs.

Lack of Due Process and Transparency

 CBCI criticizes the absence of appeal mechanisms or judicial review before license revocations and seizures, calling it arbitrary executive fiat that undermines federalism and equality under Article 14. They warn it stifles humanitarian work for the marginalized, equating regulated charity with suspicion.

 Broader Threat to Civil Society

 The bishops frame these changes as eroding India's secular fabric, urging withdrawal or revision to protect all NGOs while preserving accountability without targeting minorities. This stance echoes their advocacy for dialogue over litigation amid rising apprehensions.