The All India Catholic Union (AICU) has mounted a sharp attack on the proposed amendments to the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA), asserting that the Centre’s decision to put the Bill on hold does nothing to ad dress what it describes as serious legal violations em bedded in its provisions. At the core of its objec tion is a provision that would empower a “desig nated authority” to seize, manage or dispose of the assets and funds of or ganisations registered under the FCRA — includ ing churches, education al institutions, hospitals, orphanages and charita ble trusts — in cases of suspension, cancellation or non-renewal of regis tration. The AICU argued that such sweeping powers represent an extraordinary expansion of executive au thority and amount to a direct encroachment on constitutional protections governing religious free dom, institutional autono my and minority rights. Framing its position within the Constitution, the organisation pointed to po tential violations of Articles 25 and 26, which guaran tee freedom of conscience and the right of religious denominations to manage their own affairs and ad minister property, as well as Articles 29 and 30, which safeguard cultural and ed ucational rights of minori ties. It maintained that the State cannot assume mana gerial control over religious or denominational proper ty under the pretext of reg ulation, warning that such provisions undermine the legal foundation of institu tional independence. “These are not procedur al concerns — they go to the heart of constitutional guarantees,” AICU national spokesperson Dr John Day al said, adding that the pro visions “cannot be brushed aside by a temporary pause or deferment.” Placing its demands up front, the AICU called for the immediate and com plete withdrawal of the proposed amendments, making it clear that the Bill should not be reintroduced in any form. It also sought a formal and unambigu ous assurance, preferably articulated in Parliament, that no future legislative or administrative measures would be used to take con trol of Church assets or re strict the lawful exercise of religious freedom and asso ciated charitable activities. The organisation further demanded a time-bound and independent review of all FCRA-related actions affecting more than 6,000 Christian organisations since 2014, with restora tion in cases lacking evi dence of financial impro priety. It also called for concrete steps to address hate speech, ensure swift prosecution in cases of violence against minori ties, establish a statutory mechanism for monitoring communal incidents, and initiate structured dialogue with Christian leadership on issues relating to insti tutional autonomy and mi nority rights. “Mere withholding or deferral of the said Bill… offers neither relief nor satisfaction,” Dayal said, warning that such a move “reveals a tactical approach rather than a principled ad herence to constitutional values.” He further cautioned that the proposed framework could lead to disproportion ate consequences, including situations where institu tions face punitive action — and even loss of control over assets — for procedural or technical lapses. “In the absence of safe guards, such sweeping powers open the door to arbitrary action and under mine due process,” he said.
Linking the amendments to recent regulatory trends, Dayal pointed to what he described as a pattern of enforcement under the FCRA since 2014. “Successive amendments and widespread cancella tions of licences have dis proportionately affected organisations engaged in education, healthcare and social service, creating an atmosphere of uncertainty and constraint,” he said. The AICU also situated the Bill within what it de scribed as a broader cli mate affecting religious mi norities, including what it termed the “weaponisation of laws,” the amplification of narratives around “for eign conspiracy” and “mass conversions,” and an insti tutional failure to respond decisively to incidents of violence. “The consequences have been severe,” Dayal said. “Independent monitors… have recorded over 700 in cidents of targeted perse cution against Christians in 2025 alone,” he noted, citing cases including vio lence, vandalism and dese cration of graves. “The Christmas season of 2025 was particularly alarming, with at least 150 verified cases involving dis ruption of worship, physi cal assaults and threats,” he added. In several instances, he said, authorities failed to intervene or appeared to align with aggressors, con tributing to what the or ganisation described as a systemic failure to ensure equal protection of the law. Against this backdrop, Dayal said the decision to defer the Bill appears po litically driven rather than a genuine reconsideration. “Such a temporary sus pension would constitute nothing more than political expediency,” he said, warn ing that it treats serious constitutional concerns as an issue to be managed for electoral convenience. Rejecting this approach, he added: “Partial or provi sional measures serve only to erode public trust, with the government’s Damocles sword perpetually hang ing over the autonomy and dignity of religious institu tions.” The AICU also highlight ed the contribution of in stitutions built and run by the community over decades, often through in ternal resources and glob al support, and without reliance on government funding. “These are meant for… essential humanitarian, educational, healthcare, and spiritual endeavours… including regions where there are no government facilities,” the statement noted. “Government attempts to contain and erode them will hurt the Indian people,” AICU National President Elias Vaz said. With the legislation not formally withdrawn, the or ganisation maintained that the issues it has flagged re main unresolved, warning that any attempt to revive the amendments would reopen the same constitution al and legal questions.
