Amid pushback, government ready to refer FCRA Bill to a JPC

A Union Minister said, “There is nothing in the Bill to oppose it. It is not against any community. However, we are ready to send the Bill to a JPC for further deliberation.”

The Opposition parties, including the Congress, TMC, Left parties and DMK, have been demanding that the Bill be withdrawn entirely. However, sources said the government’s willingness to refer it to a JPC could provide a way out of the standoff inside and outside Parliament – the monsoon session is due to end August 13.

A CPM MP said, “Through this Bill, the government is not trying to regulate the use of foreign contributions. It is actually trying to regulate the organisations receiving them. That is not acceptable. The provisions of the Bill are draconian. We want the Bill to be withdrawn completely. But if the government does not want to withdraw the Bill, we are okay with it being sent to the JPC.”

The Congress too has maintained that the Bill should be withdrawn although sources said the party would be agreeable to its referral to a JPC.

DMK MP P Wilson met Shah last week with a delegation of Church leaders and handed over a memorandum expressing concerns over provisions of the Bill being perceived as adverse to the Christian community. The memorandum had sought withdrawal of the Bill or its reference to a JPC.

Mizoram Chief Minister Lalduhoma too met the Union Home Minister and conveyed concerns of the state’s Christian community.

An AAP MP said the government’s argument that only a small fraction of FCRA contributions actually went to Christian NGOs missed the larger issue. “A law passed by Parliament will outlive the government of the day. It will have far-reaching consequences,” the MP said.

What is a JPC?

A JPC and a Select Committee are both ad hoc committees constituted to examine a Bill in greater detail, but the key difference is in their composition. A JPC has members from both Houses of Parliament, with the composition decided through motions adopted by Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, while a Select Committee is constituted by one House and consists only of members of that House.

In either case, the committee can examine the Bill clause by clause, hear the government and stakeholders, seek evidence and suggest amendments; its recommendations are not binding on the government, though they carry considerable parliamentary weight. A JPC is generally seen as a broader mechanism because it brings MPs from both Houses into the examination process. Some key Bills that were sent to the JPC included the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, Personal Data Protection Bill,’One Nation, One Election’ Bill.

The government’s decision to consider a JPC referral for the FCRA Bill is also being viewed in the context of its political outreach to the Christian community in Kerala and Tamil Nadu. The BJP has been seeking to expand its electoral footprint in Kerala and has been making a concerted effort to build ties with the Christian community, whose support it sees as important for any future electoral headway in the state.

The timing is also significant in the context of the BJP’s efforts to secure DMK’s support on the delimitation Bill that the government is planning to bring in the near future.

While the government has the numbers to push the Bill through Parliament, sources maintained that the government does not want to pass the Bill without proper discussion.

The Bill proposes to insert a new Chapter IIIA into the FCRA, providing for the vesting of foreign contributions and assets created from them in a government-designated authority in certain circumstances.

One of the key concerns relates to the proposed concept of “cessation” of an FCRA certificate. Under Section 14B, a certificate would be deemed to have ceased if an organisation does not apply for renewal, its renewal application is refused or it is not renewed before expiry. Section 16A provides that, in such cases, the organisation’s foreign contribution and assets created from it would provisionally vest in the Designated Authority.

The authority could take possession of the assets and, if considered necessary in the public interest, manage the organisation’s activities. If the organisation subsequently obtains a fresh, renewed or restored certificate within the prescribed period, the assets are to be returned; failing that, the assets would permanently vest in the authority.

The Bill also provides that assets permanently vested in the authority can be transferred to a government ministry, department, agency or local authority, or sold, with the sale proceeds and unutilised foreign contribution credited to the Consolidated Fund of India.

In the case of a place of worship, however, the authority is required to ensure that its religious character is maintained while entrusting its management or operation to an eligible person.

Another concern is that the proposed law would cover an asset in its entirety even if it was created or acquired partly from foreign contribution and partly from other sources. The organisation can apply for the return of a “distinct or ascertainable” portion attributable to domestic funds, but the entire asset would initially vest with the Designated Authority. This has raised concerns among organisations that have built institutions such as schools, hospitals or other facilities through a combination of foreign and domestic donations.

The Bill had also attracted particular criticism over Section 16B, which provided for retrospective application of the new framework. It stated that foreign contributions and assets that had already vested under the existing Section 15 before the amendment came into force would be deemed to have been provisionally vested under the new Chapter IIIA from the date the amendment takes effect. This would bring such assets under the new regime governing their management, return, transfer and eventual disposal.

The retrospective provision had become especially contentious amid fears that, when read with the provisions on “cessation”, the new regime could have implications for organisations whose FCRA registrations had lapsed in the past.

While the Bill does not expressly state that assets of all such organisations would be retrospectively taken over, critics have argued that the interaction of Sections 14B and 16A could potentially bring assets created from foreign contributions under the new vesting mechanism.

The government has maintained that the FCRA amendments are intended to plug gaps in the existing law relating to the management and disposal of foreign-funded assets when an organisation’s registration is cancelled, surrendered or ceases to exist.

The Statement of Objects and Reasons says the existing framework has resulted in administrative uncertainty and scope for misuse and proposes a comprehensive system of provisional and permanent vesting, supervision, management and disposal of such assets.