Member, Parliamentary Standing Committee on P. WILSONPersonnel, Law &Justice and Pensions Senior Advocate• Member, Parliamentary Committee on Privileges Member’ of Parliament (Rajya Sabha)• Member, Parliamentary Consultative Committee on Defence Tamil Nadu To, Dated: 09.02.2024 Thiru Amit Shah Avargal, Hon’ble Union Minister for Home Affairs Government of India, Room No. 104, North Block, New Delhi – 110001. Hon’ble Thiru Amit Shah Avargal, Vanakkam! Subject: Indiscriminate revocation of FCRA Licenses of Christian and Church-based organisations and several other NGOs and need to revamp Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010

• Member, Parliamentary Standing Committee on
P. WILSONPersonnel, Law &Justice and Pensions
Senior Advocate• Member, Parliamentary Committee on Privileges Member’ of Parliament (Rajya Sabha)• Member, Parliamentary Consultative
Committee on Defence
Tamil Nadu
To, Dated: 09.02.2024
Thiru Amit Shah Avargal,
Hon’ble Union Minister for Home Affairs
Government of India, Room No. 104, North Block, New Delhi – 110001.
Hon’ble Thiru Amit Shah Avargal,
Vanakkam!
Subject: Indiscriminate revocation of FCRA Licenses of Christian and Church-based organisations and several other NGOs and need to revamp Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010

1. I hope this letter finds you in good health. I am writing to bring to your attention a matter of utmost urgency and concern regarding the indiscriminate revocation of FCRA licenses for Churches and Churchbased organizations, which has raised significant apprehensions about the fairness and transparency of the regulatory framework.
2. The Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act 2010, established with the intent to regulate foreign contributions to Indian organizations and individuals, plays a crucial role in overseeing the inflow of funds for charitable work, education, shelter homes, and health facilities across the nation. However, the current state of the FCRA, leaves room for subjective interpretation; arbitrary application and misuse, posing a threat to the democratic and secular values that our nation upholds.
3. Section 14 of FCRA empowers the government to prohibit any person or organization from accepting foreign contributions if such contributions are deemed likely to affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, public interest, freedom or fairness of elections, friendly relations with foreign states, or harmony between various religious and societal groups. However, the lack of clear definitions for the terms such as “political nature” and activities against “public in terest” , “economic interest” or “security’ in the Act leaves room for subjective interpretation, arbitrary application and prone to misuse and abuse of these provisions.
Office & Residence (Chennai): No. 10, Railway Colony, 4th Street, off Nelson Manickam Road, Chennai 600-029
Ph: 044-23743900, 044-23741600 1 Oflice (Delhi): S-326, 2nd Floor, S Block, GK-I, New Delhi 110-048 1 Ph: 011-41024164
Residence (Delhi): No. 177, south Avenue, New Delhi 110-011 1 Ph: 011-23016100 1 Mobile: +91 9868181800
Website: www.pwilson.in I Email: I Twitter: @PWi1sonDMK
4. Furthermore, what is shocking is that the Act propounds gross violation of the principles of natural justice. The Section 12 (4) (d) of the Act which postulates the terms and conditions for the purpose of an application for grant of certificate or giving prior permission, disqualifies an individual against whom any prosecution for any offence is pending. At this juncture, I would like to remind the fact that mere prosecution of an offence would not amount to conviction. In our criminal jurisprudence, the accused is innocent unless proven guilty. However, as per the Act, an accused individual is the same as a convicted individual. Moreover, the Section 12(4)(d) affects every office bearer, key personnel of an organisation as the such certificate have to be renewed within six months before expiry under Section 16 wherein the condition under Section 12(4)(d) is applicable as well.
5. It is in common knowledge that the office bearers of these NGOs being public figures would face such prosecutions for misaligning their image and to influence them. Under the Representation of the People Act 1951, a member of Parliament or Legislature of a State would be disqualified only if he is convicted of any offence and sentenced to imprisonment for not less than two years. When a person holding such a constitutional post is disqualified only after conviction, then it is shocking to see that a person against whom a prosecution is pending could be disqualified without explaining their case. The terms under Section 12(4) are not only draconian but grossly and manifestly arbitrary.
6. In other words, these provisions are used as tool to revoke FCRA licenses for Christian and Church-based organisations, as well as several other NGOs. In many of these instances, the reason for revocation of the license has been attributed to “adverse inputs’ yet nature of these inputs is often not disclosed without any clear explanation. This lack of transparency raises significant concerns, especially considering the broader trend of increasingly stringent
FCRA rules that grant the government extensive powers over NGOs which work for the poor and downtrodden.
7. To my shock, the Ministry of Home Affairs own data suggests that more than 2500 religious based NGO license has been revoked or expired, out of these 1600 NGOs were Christian and Church-based organisations. This means that more than 72 % of the NGOs in the category of religious-nature NGOs belong to one particular religion. This clearly shows the indiscriminate, arbitrary, biased revocation of FCRA license of Christian and Church-based organisations only on the ground of religion.
8. Also, these NGOs have an established reputation globally and have been recipients of foreign funds for many years, consistently submitting annual reports and providing charitable work such as education, shelter homes, and health facilities across the nation. The revocation of their license has forced several of these major institutions to stop their charitable activities such as education, shelter homes, amenities to locals and health facilities across the nation. This is in complete violation of Article 14, 19, and 21 of Constitution of India.
9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian SociaZ Action Forum v. Union of India had opined that the NGOs that have no connection with party politics or active politics cannot be denied access to foreign funds and the scope of “political nature” cannot be expanded beyond “active politics” and “party politics”. Further, the Court held that the term, “political interests” used in Rule 3(v), FCRA Rules 2011, was excessively “vague” and “susceptible to misuse”. It also agreed that legitimate means of “political action” like bandh, hartal used in Rule 3(vi) are protected and the PCRA must not be invoked to deprive an organization of its legitimate right of receiving foreign contribution. This emphasises the need to relook the current regulations and consider the far-reaching implications of the FCRA on democratic values and the vital role played by NGOs, especially those engaged in charitable activities.
10. The Section 7 of the Act states that contributions received by an organisation cannot be transferred to any other person or organisation unless that person or organisation is also registered to accept foreign contributions. The smaller organisations, which are operating at the grassroots level but don’t have any access to foreign funds, are being denied the opportunity to work in collaboration with big NGOs which have the capability of raising money. This has clearly impacted the role of smaller NGO in our societies and various charitable works carried out by them.
11. The FCRA does not provide any grievance redressal mechanism or appellate authority for NGOs whose licenses are revoked. The only recourse is for NGOs to approach the High Court by filing a Writ Petition, but over 100 cases are still pending. This lack of clear procedure and no remedy for challenging an arbitrary revocation provides unfettered power in the hands of bureaucrats.
12. In light of the above, it is crucial that the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act 2010 and the Rules thereunder undergoes a comprehensive revaluation to ensure fairness, transparency, and a robust grievance redressal mechanism which provides a statutory remedy to the NGOs whose licenses have been revoked.
13. Therefore, I kindly request your goodself to give necessary instructions for withdrawing cancellation of all such FCRA certificates and initiate a thorough review of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act 2010 and Rules thereunder and take necessary steps in aligning them with the international standards. This will not only uphold the democratic principles which our nation cherishes but also safeguard the invaluable contributions of NGOs to the well-being of our society and charitable activities.
Thanking you,
P.WILSON
Member, Rajya Sabha