As FCRA restricts NGOs, Supreme Court had agreed that right to associate is not carte blanche for foreign funds

The Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Rules, 2026, notified by the Union Home Ministry on June 22, have introduced tougher limits on NGOs to receive foreign donations. These amendments, and the ones before them, source their legality from the Centre’s argument in the Supreme Court that the freedom to form associations or engage in the “business” of charity does not include a right to receive unbridled foreign funds or to use the money outside “permissible activities”.

Among other changes, Rule 9(1B) mandates that certificates of registration of NGOs must specify the “purpose or purposes and the States or Union territories”. The Rules limit NGOs to specific and stated spheres of activity, which exclude proselytisation and geographical bounds.

Also Read: FCRA Bill — expanding state control over civil society

Strengthened by judgments

The government’s sweeping powers to regulate foreign donations have been blessed by the Supreme Court in multiple judgments in the recent past. A three-judge Bench in Noel Harper versus Union of India in April 2022 declared that “no one can be heard to claim a vested right to accept foreign donation, much less an absolute right”.

The court had disapproved of the tendency to seek funds abroad, saying it gave the impression that the nation was incapable of looking after its own needs. The judgment had taken on a moralistic tenor, saying the aspirations of a country rested on the hard work of citizens, and not on foreign largesse.

A March 2020 decision of the Supreme Court inIndian Social Action Forum (INSAF) versus Union of India had agreed with the Centre that the “regulation of acceptance and utilisation of foreign contribution is for the purpose of protecting national interest”. The top court had, however, in this case, called for a “balance” between the law’s objective and the rights of the voluntary organisations to access foreign funds. The INSAF judgment declared that only associations which play a role in active or party politics were barred from accessing foreign funds.

Also Read | Fear of the foreign: On the FCRA amendments

Charitable work can continue: govt.

The government has argued in court that FCRA, its Rules and amendments were meant to regulate the manner of doing business, more importantly, concerning foreign contributions. FCRA did not intend to stop charitable work.

The Centre has argued that the regulatory regime did not hurt the fundamental rights of individuals to form associations or practice a profession or carry on an occupation, trade or business under Article 19(1)(c) and Article 19(1)(g), respectively, of the Constitution.

The Centre has referred to Article 19(4) to demonstrate that it could frame laws to reasonably restrict the fundamental freedom to form associations under Article 19(1)(c) in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India or to protect public order or morality. Similarly, Article 19(6) allowed the government to impose reasonable fetters on the right to trade, business, or occupation available under Article 19(1)(g) if the State could show these freedoms were against public interest.

So far, the top court and the government agree that no absolute right inheres in anyone to receive foreign contributions.