During an extensive consultation conducted in Shillong by the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) examining proposed amendments to the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA), the Presbyterian Church of India (PCI) brought pressing operational, legal, and constitutional challenges to the forefront. Led by Rev. Socratis Diengngan, Chairman of the FCRA Committee of the PCI, a delegation presented an unequivocal account of the administrative paralysis caused by persistent delays in obtaining fresh registration certificates and securing regular renewals under the FCRA framework. Beyond the procedural bottlenecks, the delegation articulated severe concerns regarding provisions governing asset surrender, the disproportionate stringency of newly drafted compliance rules, and the legal sanctity of land ownership governed by Autonomous District Councils under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution.
The consultation in the Meghalaya state capital brought together numerous civil society organizations, faith-based bodies, and local community leaders before the JPC delegation chaired by Member of Parliament Dr. Sanjay Jaiswal. The hearing served as an essential platform to assess how statutory updates to foreign funding regulations directly reverberate through grassroots welfare institutions across the Northeast.
Procedural Logjams: The Threat of Operational Paralysis
For charitable, educational, and healthcare organizations operating across remote terrains in the Northeastern states, foreign contributions have historically bridged critical funding gaps in social infrastructure. However, as the PCI delegation underscored, obtaining timely FCRA clearances has transformed from a regulatory routine into an uncertain bureaucratic bottleneck.
The primary grievance raised before the JPC focused on the prolonged timelines and unpredictable delays in securing initial FCRA registration certificates and renewing expiring ones. The PCI stressed that foreign funding regulations must not become an inadvertent instrument of administrative inertia. Under existing legal stipulations, when an organization’s renewal remains pending without prompt resolution from supervisory authorities, its ability to receive, disburse, and deploy funds is effectively suspended.
Rev. Diengngan emphasized to committee members and the media that multiple regional stakeholders face identical impediments. Instead of a system characterized by transparency and expeditious processing, charitable bodies find themselves navigating convoluted compliance layers where routine queries and paperwork stall institutional work for months or even years. The church called upon the parliamentary panel to recommend streamlined, user-friendly processes that ensure national oversight without crippling the legitimate, decades-old humanitarian and educational missions run by longstanding institutions.
The Contentious Question of Church Assets and Sixth Schedule Protections
While administrative backlogs formed a central pillar of the PCI’s deposition, the broader controversy surrounding asset forfeiture emerged as a focal point of contention. Proposed statutory modifications seek to expand central authorities’ jurisdiction over physical assets and infrastructure established by institutions if their FCRA credentials lapse, are cancelled, or are voluntarily surrendered.
The Presbyterian Church of India took a firm stand against any statutory measure that would mandate the surrender or confiscation of organizational property. Rev. Diengngan explained that church assets—comprising schools, colleges, dispensaries, orphanages, hospitals, and community halls—are rarely built purely through external capital. Rather, these structures represent collective communal stewardship, realized incrementally through domestic congregational offerings, local member tithings, and community land gifts alongside foreign contributions.
Crucially, the PCI situated this issue within the unique constitutional framework of Meghalaya and the wider Northeast. Meghalaya is predominantly covered under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution of India, which vests exclusive authority over land tenure, transfer, and tribal customary inheritance in Autonomous District Councils (ADCs). Rev. Diengngan made it clear that neither the central government nor state authorities possess unilateral leeway to take over tribal and community lands without strictly adhering to the customary laws and regulations enacted by the ADCs. The delegation maintained that federal laws governing foreign donations cannot override established constitutional guarantees designed to safeguard indigenous land ownership and tribal self-governance.
Compliance Burdens and the Demand for Legislative Reconsideration
The PCI delegation also critiqued the procedural direction of the broader regulatory architecture, expressing alarm over the escalating burden of compliance. The church noted that auxiliary rules introduced under executive notifications often end up being far more punitive and demanding than the parent statutes themselves.
Small and mid-sized charitable trusts, local presbyteries, and rural non-governmental organizations frequently lack the expansive legal and accounting departments necessary to manage overlapping reporting standards, specialized banking constraints, and shifting accounting guidelines. Consequently, administrative expenses rise, diverting scarce financial and human resources away from community welfare to manage sheer bureaucratic upkeep.
Addressing the legislative package under parliamentary review, the PCI formally petitioned the Joint Parliamentary Committee to reconsider the notified rules and recommend the repeal of overly stringent amendment bills. Rev. Diengngan stated that if any revised statutory norms or procedural obligations are to be implemented, their enforcement must strictly operate prospectively rather than retrospectively. Imposing retroactive conditions or holding past transactions accountable to newly framed standards destabilizes legitimate social sector planning and unfairly exposes long-standing charitable bodies to punitive penalties.
Examining the Broader Picture: Proportionality in Regulation
The JPC consultation in Shillong highlighted an underlying structural tension between national regulatory safeguards and the operational freedom of the voluntary sector. During the hearing, JPC Chairman Dr. Sanjay Jaiswal noted that of the total foreign contributions entering India—estimated at approximately ₹22,000 crore annually—only about six percent flows toward churches and faith-based organizations, with the remaining bulk directed toward secular NGOs and other institutions.
This statistical reality formed a persuasive backdrop to the concerns raised by the PCI and other regional bodies. Given that faith-based entities account for only a fractional share of incoming foreign capital, subjecting established welfare institutions to overly restrictive oversight and protracted processing timelines appears disproportionate. While checking illicit transactions and ensuring financial transparency remain valid national goals, the mechanism must not penalize established institutions that deliver vital public goods in remote and underserved regions.
In states across the Northeast, where public infrastructure in health and education has faced historical and geographical limitations, church-affiliated trusts and charitable bodies run primary schools in remote hills, manage healthcare centers, and provide disaster relief during regional crises. When regulatory paralysis deprives these institutions of operational bandwidth, it is the vulnerable grassroots populations who feel the immediate impact.
The stakeholder engagement in Shillong underscored the necessity of institutional dialogue between parliamentary lawmakers and regional representatives. By bringing their concerns directly before the JPC, the Presbyterian Church of India articulated a cohesive regional perspective that balances accountability with practical feasibility.
The PCI’s representation leaves the parliamentary committee with clear priorities: establishing clear timelines to eliminate chronic renewal delays, simplifying compliance steps for community organizations, honoring the statutory authority of Autonomous District Councils over land ownership, and preventing coercive asset takeover provisions. For a vibrant and lawful social sector to continue serving public welfare, regulatory systems must facilitate ease of service rather than foster administrative obstruction.
About The Author
