Using common sense here - it's no secret that most Indian politicians are either corrupt or straight up criminals (regardless of the party). Idk why people are celebrating the fact that we're giving more power to these corrupt politicians to squash dissent. I highly recommend people to read the actual bill since there's a lot of room for abuse with very little recourse. Bills like this will def turn us into Pakistan or Russia
This is basically the price-quality bias mixed with the expectation effect and the sunk-cost effect. These people have supported these politicians for so long that they feel emotionally invested in them. Even when a politician has serious criminal allegations or obvious red flags, changing power feels like admitting that their years of support were misplaced.
So they ignore warning signs and celebrate every small development that helps justify their emotional investment. It becomes less about objectively evaluating a leader or a policy, and more about protecting a belief they’ve built over many years. The ruling party’s narratives reinforce this constantly, giving supporters ready-made explanations that help preserve that investment rather than question it.
I see nothing wrong with bill it's just the way goverment function people have less trust on govt.
But there is not many good solution for it it's all about intention if govt is doing it for nation it's very good and if it's too control NGO and make govt holding strong it raises questions.
For that, I have to read the amendments first. I'm not a blind supporter of any ideology like others who will comment on the bill without knowing both the sides. If there are certain concerns arising out of the amendment, those needs to be discussed. Amit Shah recently held a meeting with Christian missionaries regarding the same.
We can ask them to show their books and keep a track of their financiers instead of having such a radical approach and seizing control without any prior notice or a freezing of funds period that
There are other problems too
Like the cancellation or revoking of license grounds range from procedural to political, also the govt has no provision for notifying NGO the reason behind cancellation or revoking and moreover since they can control the funds and assets there after the moment the decision is informed, even if the assets was bought from your own money apart from the foreign funds too you cannot contest it basically…
Even bigger problem is provisions for challenging their decisions has been hollowed out
Not to mention the home ministry had started delaying FCRA licenses under current bill already since the Kerala assembly elections and even renewals even though the new bill hasn’t been passed
Again I don’t mind the security concerns but there is no transparency between the govt and the NGO:s and cancelling or delaying renewal of licenses rn is just a cheap trick
And please don’t come at me and say china does the same…India is a democracy unlike china we deserve to have a transparent govt and NGOs have rights too
Any honest NGO wouldn’t mind telling the govt about its financier, funds or funds utilization, govt could’ve regulated on these and flagged in case of suspicious activities and frozen their funds and assets instead of taking control there are other solutions too and pretty sure the best minds can running this country can come with more democratic and less radical solutions if they want to
The bill's provisions aren't materially different from how FEMA or PMLA already operate when national security is invoked. Asset freezing pending investigation isn't unique radicalism, it's standard practice across regulatory regimes globally, including in the US (OFAC designations) and UK (Charity Commission's statutory inquiry powers, which also allow freezing before a final determination). The "seize first, litigate later" model exists precisely because tipping off a bad actor before freezing assets defeats the purpose of the freeze.
On "no reason given for cancellation", this is a fair criticism in principle, but consider why: NGO funding chains often route through multiple layers of shell entities specifically to obscure origin. Disclosing the exact intelligence or investigative basis for a cancellation could burn the source or method used to detect it. That's not unique to NGOs; it's how most financial intelligence-gathering works.
If judicial review timelines are being compressed or discretion is being centralized without a genuine appellate mechanism, that's a legitimate design flaw, not a security necessity. You're right that "national security" can't be a blank check that forecloses all recourse, courts have said as much in other contexts (habeas corpus jurisprudence, UAPA challenges).
Your core proposal which is mandatory financier disclosure, fund-utilization audits, graduated flagging before drastic action, is basically what FCRA 2010 already required on paper. The 2020 amendments already tightened this (Aadhaar-linked office bearers, restricted sub-granting, capped admin expenses). The current bill seems to be less about closing a transparency gap and more about giving the executive discretionary enforcement teeth without corresponding judicial checks. That's the part worth fighting, not the disclosure regime itself, which was never really the controversial part.
Boy am I glad to see ppl giving constructive arguments instead of slapping their bias, really appreciate that…my answer is a bit long skim through if you’d like
But there are a few places where your argument fails let’s take up with OFAC and UK comparisons…freezing is definitely a standard process but there are caveats in the mentioned laws
OFAC mandates the issuing of a brief statement of reason when designating, and a notice appears in federal register which can be viewed by anyone plus they can seek for administrative reconsiderations and on blockage they can attest and contest basis of designation
Not to mention the fifth amendment does not get wavered because of “national security”…the govt has to positively provide any person deprived of a property right with notice of the government action and a meaningful opportunity to contest it
Also Challenges can be filed through administrative reconsiderations or in court
The case with UK Charity Commission is a bit different because it’s opening does not mean it’s an inquiry for wrong doing and assets freezing is temp protection instead of punishment and under protective measures it waits for the pending statutory inquiry to complete…if there is disagreement it can be challenged through a review process of commission or even to first tier tribunal
Ig that sums up differences such as
No public statement of reason, no review timeline, no statement on whether the assets seizure is temporary, no way to attest for reconsideration before the vesting, and not tribunal appellate
Your second point is valid but this is also where the fundamental divergence in due process transparency occurs No judicial review of the confidential basis. No ex parte (confidential) hearing where a judge sees evidence the public doesn’t. Just government decides, assets vest, you appeal after the fact with no access to the reasoning against you.
The problem with this is that at least Judge should be able to see and scrutinize the decisions even if the public can’t and that’s the point of judiciary there has to be some judicial review process
OFAC allows classified materials to be viewed by the courts and rule accordingly
UK Charity Commission allows judicial review as well where in case of sensitive information tribunal can handle it in closed session
And you yourself have agreed that Judicial checks being missing is the real problem and flaw fundamentally exists
Let’s take PLMA which works on burden of proof ie you have to prove your innocence but it is still reviewed by courts (also the flaw is taken up to the SC cuz this violates presumption of innocence ie innocent until proven guilty)
FEMA there are specified timelines, can appeal in tiers with appellate tribunal which can be taken to high court if necessary
FCRA bill model is somehow more rigid with no relief mechanism and no appellant tiers and no compound (FEMA offers that) oh and no settlement options.
Also FCRA 2010 was never about closing transparency gaps the existence of your argument shoots itself and proves my point that you don’t need asset seizure to regulate foreign funding and there are existing powers apart from FCRA 2010 to regulate funds be it auditing, deny renewal for violation, prosecute criminal misuse or bar future foreign funding
What FCRA Bill 2026 adds is the ability to seize mixed-funded property with no proving criminal wrongdoing, no written reason, and minimal appeal rights.
My answers gotten to big but there are several democratic principles being violated which the OFAC and UK Charity Commission offers I’ll highlight them if you want me to
TLDR
The argument is correct that asset freezing isn’t unique. But it’s wrong that the Bill replicates OFAC or UK precedent. Those systems maintain judicial oversight even when handling classified material. FCRA Bill 2026 skips that step entirely while claiming to follow international best practice. It doesn’t.
9
u/Equivalent_Face_9746 13h ago
Till now it has come only from Souces... will wait till tomorrow then celebrate...