Minister of State for Home Nityanand Rai moved the motion on August 12 as Opposition MPs raised slogans and questioned the absence of Home Minister Amit Shah, whose name had earlier appeared against the motion in the House’s supplementary list of business. The motion was adopted despite demands from Opposition parties that the legislation be withdrawn altogether.
The joint committee will comprise 21 Lok Sabha members nominated by Speaker Om Birla and 10 Rajya Sabha members nominated by Chairman C P Radhakrishnan. It has been asked to submit its report during the first week of Parliament’s winter session, giving MPs an opportunity to examine provisions that have triggered objections from political parties, civil society organisations and religious groups.
Congress general secretary K C Venugopal challenged the government over Shah’s absence and described the proposed amendments as being directed against non-governmental organisations and minority institutions. Samajwadi Party president Akhilesh Yadav said Opposition parties were united in seeking withdrawal of the legislation.
Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju rejected allegations that the measure discriminated against minorities. He argued that regulation of overseas funding was necessary to protect national interests and said Opposition parties should use the joint committee proceedings to present their concerns and propose changes.
The referral means the Lok Sabha has not passed the amendment bill itself. The legislation will now undergo committee scrutiny before returning to Parliament for further consideration. The committee can examine individual clauses, invite evidence from government departments and outside stakeholders and recommend amendments, although its recommendations will not bind Parliament.
Introduced in the Lok Sabha on March 25, the bill proposes significant changes to the Foreign Contribution Act, 2010, which governs the receipt and utilisation of foreign donations by individuals, associations and organisations. Debate on the legislation had earlier been deferred after concerns emerged over its possible impact on charitable and religious institutions.
A central provision would create a Designated Authority empowered to supervise and manage foreign contributions and assets when an organisation’s FCRA registration is cancelled, surrendered or ceases to remain valid. Registration certificates generally require renewal every five years.
Under the proposal, foreign contributions and assets created from them could provisionally vest with the Designated Authority when a certificate ceases. If the organisation fails to secure a fresh registration or have its certificate renewed or restored within the prescribed period, those assets could vest permanently with the authority.
Permanently vested property could subsequently be transferred to a ministry, department, government authority or agency, or disposed of through other prescribed procedures. Proceeds from disposal, along with unutilised foreign contributions covered by the provisions, could be credited to the Consolidated Fund of India.
The treatment of assets has become the central point of contention. The legislation extends the vesting framework to assets created partly with foreign contributions, although organisations may seek the return of a distinct portion demonstrably created from domestic funds. Critics argue that separating domestic and overseas funding retrospectively could prove difficult for hospitals, schools and other institutions built through mixed donations.
The bill provides safeguards for places of worship, requiring the Designated Authority to preserve their religious character when such property comes under its management. The government has maintained that the framework concerns the source and regulatory status of assets rather than the religion or community operating an institution.
Other amendments would define responsibility for key functionaries of organisations and impose duties when entities become defunct. The authority would also receive powers comparable to those of a civil court for purposes including summoning individuals, requiring documents and receiving evidence.
The proposal also changes the penalty regime. The maximum imprisonment prescribed for general violations would fall from five years to one year, while prior approval of the central government would be required before an investigation for an offence under the Act can begin.
(IPA Service)
