Kerala Assembly passes resolution against FCRA rules; Here's why opposition, including LDF, CPI(M), INC oppose new amendments

When put to a vote, the resolution was carried with 111 members supporting it and two opposing. Notably, the Opposition Left Democratic Front (LDF), led by the CPI(M), backed the resolution brought by the Congress-led UDF government. Amendments proposed by BJP legislator V Muraleedharan were turned down for being inconsistent with the resolution's intent and substance.

 

Satheesan pointed out that the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Rules, 2026, notified by the Centre on June 22, 2026, would have damaging consequences for voluntary and charitable groups working in social welfare, health, education, and charity sectors nationwide, with Kerala being particularly affected. The resolution highlighted that such registered organisations have, over the decades, supported government efforts in serving marginalised populations and contributed significantly to education, healthcare, disability rehabilitation, and disaster relief work.

 

 

It is important to note that earlier, on June 26, the Congress and CPI(M) separately wrote to Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Union Home Minister Amit Shah, calling for the rollback of the recently notified Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Rules, 2026. Both the opposition parties contended that the amendments would gravely hamper the functioning of NGOs, minority institutions, and voluntary organisations nationwide.

 

In his letter to the Prime Minister, Congress general secretary and Public Accounts Committee chairperson K C Venugopal termed the amendments a "systemic assault" on civil society, alleging that the government is using executive powers to tighten its grip over non-governmental organisations after facing pushback in Parliament. He warned that compelling NGOs to select activities from a government-approved list and confining their work to pre-designated geographic areas would severely limit their capacity to respond to emergencies and community needs.

 

 

Notably, this is not the first time that the opposition parties have opposed the said amendment. On April 2, 2026, the Parliament witnessed a ruckus as opposition parties, including the Congress, Left parties, and Trinamool Congress, staged a visible protest in the Parliament premises, holding banners and demanding the immediate withdrawal of the Bill. They described the FCRA Bill as ‘draconian’ and an attempt to grant sweeping executive powers that could lead to arbitrary action.

 

It is important to note that the recent amendment proposed by the Indian government in no way alters the main FCRA itself, the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010. However, the Rules, which are the subordinate, delegated laws formed under the parent Act, are what have been changed.

 

 

This section lists 16 permitted activities that religious organisations can carry out using foreign contributions, which include, construction and maintenance of places of worship, preservation of sacred scriptures, supporting institutions studying religious philosophy, pilgrim amenities, dharamshalas and langars, religious education and meditation retreats, devotional music and theatre, documentation of indigenous faith practices, protection of sacred relics and heritage sites, archiving of religious rituals, inter-faith dialogue, religious publications and research, religious libraries and museums, faith-based counselling and de-addiction centres, training in traditional sacred crafts, and burial or cremation ground maintenance. However, any of these activities undertaken with the intention of performing proselytisation have been specifically excluded.

 

CPIM, Congress protecting proselytisation networks?

A crucial distinction that must be understood is that the recent government notification does not amend the parent legislation, the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010, in any manner whatsoever. What has been revised are the Rules, which are subordinate or delegated legislation framed under the authority of the parent Act. These Rules serve as the operational framework that governs how the provisions of the Act are implemented on the ground.

 

ALSO READ: Pune Pastor Kenneth Paal Silway booked for misleading, duping 300-400 claiming to cure incurable diseases; details

Opposition parties and missionary organisations raising objections to these changes must recognise this fundamental difference. The core Act remains entirely intact and unchanged. What the government has done is tighten the procedural rules, particularly those governing foreign funding channelled into activities associated with proselytisation. This is well within the executive's legitimate rule-making authority under the Act and does not constitute any overreach or alteration of the law as passed by Parliament.

In essence, the criticism that the government is dismantling the FCRA framework is misplaced. The amendments are targeted, subordinate, and procedural in nature, aimed at bringing greater accountability and transparency to how foreign contributions are received and utilised, especially in the context of religious conversion activities. Those opposing these rules would do well to engage with the actual text of the amendment rather than misrepresent its scope and intent.

By demanding a rollback of the FCRA Amendment Rules, Congress and CPI(M) are, knowingly or otherwise, providing a political shield to foreign-funded proselytisation networks operating across India. These rules specifically tighten oversight on religious conversion activities financed from abroad. The Opposition's resistance, therefore, raises serious questions about whose interests they are truly representing.