The Catholic Church’s fight against the Centre’s cancellation of the Foreign Contribution (Reg ulation) Act (FCRA) regis trations received a shot in the arm on Thursday, with the Bombay High Court at Goa staying the cancella tion of the certificates of two prominent diocesan organisations and ques tioning, prima facie, the very basis on which the ac tion was taken. Justice Valmiki Menez es passed the order while hearing first appeals filed by the two organisations challenging the February 3, 2026 orders of the For eigners Division (FCRA Wing) of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), New Delhi. The court, at the pre liminary stage, raised questions over the basis on which the registra tions had been cancelled, observing that the show cause notices issued to the organisations did not prima facie contain alle gations directly connected to the statutory ground in voked for cancellation.
The MHA had proceeded under Section 14(1)(e) of the FCRA, which permits cancellation where a regis tered organisation has not undertaken any reasonable activity in its chosen field for the benefit of society for two consecutive years, or has become defunct. However, the show-cause notices primarily sought details of the utilisation of foreign contributions for project activities during three consecutive financial years — 2021-22, 2022-23 and 2023-24. The show-cause notices asked the organisations to ex plain the non-receipt and non-utilisation of foreign funds along with supporting documents. The registrations were subsequently cancelled on Feb ruary 3, with the MHA stating that the organisations had failed to provide any valid, substantive or convincing jus tification and/or supporting documents explaining the non-receipt and non-utilisation of foreign contributions during the three-year period. The High Court, however, drew a distinction between an organisation not receiving foreign contributions and an or ganisation becoming inactive.
If you enjoyed reading this article, you can help support our journalism by adding OHeraldo as a preferred source.
Justice Menezes observed that, prima facie, Section 14(1)(e) does not require an FCRA-registered organisation to necessarily receive foreign contributions or continuous ly utilise foreign funds. What is relevant, the court noted, is whether the organisation continues to function and pur sue activities in furtherance of its stated objects, including through resources other than foreign contributions. The court further observed that the impugned cancella tion orders appeared to rely principally on the appellants’ failure to receive foreign contributions during the relevant period and the consequent absence of activities involving the use of such funds. The organisations also challenged the cancellation on the ground that they had not been afforded a hearing as re quired under Section 14(2) of the FCRA before the adverse orders were passed.
Taking note of these circumstances, the court held that the cancellation orders prima facie required to be stayed and accordingly granted ad-interim relief in terms of the prayers made in the appeals. The court has issued notice to the respondents, includ ing the Union of India, returnable on September 10, 2026. It said the appeals would be finally disposed of upon the respondents’ appearance. Senior Advocate J E Coelho Pereira, assisted by Advocate Jeet Volvoikar, appeared for both appellants.
