New Delhi: After years of cancelling and suspending FCRA licences on grounds ranging from procedural lapses and tax filing errors to allegations of “anti-development” activity and public advocacy, and several rounds of tightening its rules – including one stalled but ongoing effort – the Union government has refused to share even basic, aggregated information on such actions with Parliament, citing secrecy.This came to light when CPI(M) Rajya Sabha MP John Brittas said his repeated attempts since 2024 to seek details on FCRA cancellations, non-renewals and related data had been disallowed in the Rajya Sabha. “When transparency itself becomes ‘secret’, accountability becomes the first casualty,” Brittas said on X on Wednesday (April 1), adding, “What is so confidential about regulatory decisions affecting public charitable institutions that even Parliament is denied access to the information?”His post refers to several questions he has raised on the Foreign Contributions (Regulation) Act, 2010, including one about the FCRA online portal run by the Union home ministry. It earlier allowed users to look up individual non-government organisations (NGOs) and see details such as their registration status, filings and foreign funds received. That NGO-wise public access has been removed since 2022, meaning that organisation-level data is no longer provided to the public. Brittas sought to confirm if this was the case in his question to parliament and the reasons for it. This request was also denied, citing “security” concerns.FCRA actions have increasingly drawn scrutiny in recent years. In September 2024, the Union home ministry cancelled the FCRA licence of Sonam Wangchuk’s NGO, the Students’ Educational and Cultural Movement of Ladakh (SECMOL), citing, among other reasons, a Swedish-funded project described as covering “migration, climate change, food security, and sovereignty”. The ministry said foreign contributions could not be used for work relating to the country’s sovereignty, terming it against national interest.The phrasing of the ban on SECMOL accepting donations from abroad drew widespread criticism, with observers noting that the government appeared to separate “sovereignty” from “food security” in his financial arrangements with his donors, which had altered the impression of the funding – Wangchuk had received funding for promoting “food security and sovereignty”, which was presented as “food security, and sovereignty,” the comma changing the project’s scope.Against this backdrop, the concern Brittas raises about transparency is serious, especially since the grounds to cancel licences as well as the norms for accessing overseas funding have been made increasingly stringent. For instance, the current round of proposed amendments to the FCRA law – a process put on hold on Wednesday amid protests in Kerala, a state bound for Assembly elections this month – create a mechanism for the government to take control of the assets of NGOs whose licences are cancelled, surrendered or lapse.The government has often been accused of weaponising the FCRA against critics, especially organisations related to the church in any way. On Christmas Day, 2021, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government cancelled the FCRA registration of the Missionaries of Charity, an organisation founded and run by Nobel Peace Prize laureate Mother Teresa. That revocation was rolled back after public outrage, and all it reportedly took was the charity submitting “some documents“, raising the concern that the action itself had been arbitrary.At another time, the government cancelled the licence of a research outfit, the Centre for Policy Research, saying it had published its reports on its web site, and that made it a current affairs (not research) organisation. CPR had to significantly scale down its operations and struggled to pay staff once its accounts and funding were frozen.Another instance was the cancellation of the FCRA licence to Greenpeace in 2016, for which the government cited various unexpected reasons, such as its holding “talks” with the Aam Aadmi Party, attempts to “delay and place illegal obstructions to India’s energy plans”, “campaigning, protesting and lobbying against government of India’s policies” [and] an anti-nuclear “full page colour advertisement in the Hindu with a sarcasm-laced header”.Further, there is a long list of reasons in the FCRA, a 2010 law, allowing the government to cancel registrations, suspend them or refuse to renew them. Those reasons, as per a document from November 2024 publicised by the Union government, include grounds such as diversion of funds for “anti-development activities” or “inciting malicious protests”, findings of “likelihood of personal gain” or use of funds for “undesirable activities”, adverse inputs including links with “anti-national organisations” and concerns that acceptance of foreign funds could affect “social or religious harmony” or involve “forceful religious conversion”.More grounds include action if the association accepting foreign donations is not found at the declared address, or if office bearers or key functionaries are not found at the given address or are found to be fictitious or benami. In all, the document lists 14 individual sections and sub-sections of this one law dealing with why an organisation might be found in violation of its license terms.Along with publicising the document, the government explained why it was doing so as follows:The [Union Home] Ministry has received representation from some of the associations stating that reasons for denial of their application are not clear. The matter has been examined ind [and] it is decided to disseminate the consolidated reasons of denial of renewal/registration applications for benelit [benefit] of applicant associations.Four of twelve “reasons for denial” of FCRA clearance listed in a November 2024 government notice.Since multiple distinct provisions within one law can be grounds for action, Brittas sought a detailed account of the number of cancellations and non-renewals the law has resulted in, along with the reasons cited in each case and the procedures followed. But his efforts since 2024, involving eight such questions, have elicited no response, prompting him to take to X to raise the issue publicly on April 1.The latest question he asked was filed on March 10, and he said it was meant to be answered on March 11 during the ongoing Budget Session.“All those questions relating to cancellation of FCRA licences were disallowed under Rule 47(2)(XXII) on the ground that the information sought is ‘secret in nature’,” Brittas said on X. He is referring to a rule of parliamentary procedure, cited to deny him any information about processes under FCRA. Rule 47(2)(XXII) says that a question is inadmissible if it seeks information “about matters which are in their nature secret”.CPI(M) MP (Rajya Sabha) John Brittas shared the response received by him for questions related to the Foreign Contributions Regulation Act, 2010. Source: @JohnBrittas/XThe images above are posted by CPI(M) Rajya Sabha MP John Brittas, detailing two sets of questions he raised about the functioning of FCRA, 2010, regulated by the Union Home Ministry. Source: @JohnBrittas/XAccording to Amnesty International, as of March 26, 21,933 organisations in India have lost their FCRA licenses, depriving them of essential funds and often resulting in their closure or severe restrictions on their activities. According to it, “Those most impacted are organisations associated with minority rights, right to freedom of expression, environmental rights and climate action.”Meanwhile, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, the ideological backbone of the BJP, is also alleged to have accepted received foreign funding over the years, though the full extent of its financial networks, funding sources and spending remains opaque. This, too, has been a point of contention during election campaigns in Kerala.