Cancellation of FCRA Registration: Implications & Controversies

Recently, FCRA (Foreign Contribution Regulation Act) registration of NGOs like Centre for Policy Research (CPR) and World Vision India (WVI) was cancelled.

The FCRA Regime: Framework & Purpose

Enacted originally in 1976, replaced in 2010 and amended in 2020.

Objective: Ensure that foreign funds do not threaten internal security, political sovereignty, or values of national interest.

NGOs must register (valid for 5 years), comply with reporting norms, accounting, and usage restrictions.

Reasons for Cancellation

Alleged violations spanning 2012–13 to 2020–21 in the case of WVI; noncompliance with norms.

Administrative grounds: NGOs failing to renew registration or not meeting deadline due to amended rules and pandemic delays.

Critics argue lack of transparency in process, possible selective enforcement.

Scale & Trends

Since 2015, over 16,000 NGOs’ FCRA registration have been cancelled.

As of early 2024, ~16,989 NGOs held FCRA registration; around 6,000 had ceased operations from Jan 2022 due to nonrenewal or rejection.

Impact & Concerns

Civil Society Constraint: NGOs working in human rights, social justice, environment may feel constrained.

Funding Crunch: Loss of foreign grants could hamper projects, capacity building, international cooperation.

Political Criticism: Accusations of suppressing dissent or compliance driven by ideological motives.

Regulation vs Freedom: Striking a balance between oversight and autonomy remains contentious.

Policy & Legal Responses

Calls for clearer, transparent guidelines for cancellation, appeals, and audit processes.

Strengthening internal accountability mechanisms in NGOs to preempt violations.

Potential judicial review to scrutinize grounds of cancellation and due process.

Conclusion

While regulation of foreign funding is essential for sovereignty and security, the cancellation of FCRA registrations en masse raises significant questions about fairness, transparency, and impact on civil society. A balanced and principled approach is necessary to preserve both regulatory oversight and civic space.