CURRENT AFFAIRS | 25 JUNE 2026
What Happened
The Union Home Ministry has tightened India’s foreign-funding framework under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 (FCRA) through two notifications amending the FCRA Rules. The new rules introduce a minimum-utilisation requirement, geography-linked registration of foreign money, and tighter conditions for the release of subsequent instalments. Most notably, the revised Schedule explicitly bars foreign contributions for “proselytisation” or conversion-oriented activity, while continuing to permit faith-based education and charity. The phrase “excluding proselytisation” recurs throughout the new Schedule, signalling a clear regulatory line between religious welfare work and active conversion drives funded from abroad.
Background: How FCRA Regulates Foreign Money
FCRA 2010 governs the acceptance and utilisation of foreign contributions by individuals, associations and companies, ensuring such funds do not undermine national interest. Section 5 deals with organisations of a political nature that are barred from receiving foreign contributions, while Section 41 allows the compounding of certain offences. Penalties for violations can run up to Rs 1 lakh, or 5%, 10% or 30% of the contribution depending on the nature of the breach. The latest amendments deepen the compliance net by linking registration to the geography of the foreign money and demanding that recipients actually deploy a minimum share of received funds.
Why It Matters: The Conversion Question
The “excluding proselytisation” clause directly engages Article 25 of the Constitution — the freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practise and propagate religion. The crucial constitutional question is whether the right to “propagate” includes a right to convert. In Rev. Stainislaus v State of Madhya Pradesh (1977), the Supreme Court squarely held that the right to propagate religion does NOT include a right to convert another person, and upheld the anti-conversion laws of Madhya Pradesh and Odisha. The new FCRA rules operationalise that very distinction in the domain of foreign funding: faith-based charity is fine, but foreign money channelled into conversion activity is not.
Constitutional / Legal Framework
Article 25 — freedom of conscience and the free profession, practice and propagation of religion (subject to public order, morality and health). Rev. Stainislaus v State of Madhya Pradesh (1977) — the right to “propagate” does not include a right to convert; the SC upheld the MP and Odisha anti-conversion statutes. Under the FCRA 2010, Section 5 bars organisations of a political nature from receiving foreign contributions, and Section 41 permits compounding of offences. Violations attract penalties up to Rs 1 lakh or a percentage (5%/10%/30%) of the contribution.
CLAT Angle
This story tests Article 25 jurisprudence and the “propagate does not equal convert” principle — a recurring Legal Reasoning theme. Expect passages applying the Stainislaus ratio to fact patterns, and questions on the State’s power to regulate foreign funding of NGOs. Watch the careful distinction between practising/propagating one’s own faith (protected) and inducing conversion (not protected as a right).
Key Facts
| Statute | Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 |
| Key clause | “excluding proselytisation” in the new Schedule |
| Leading case | Rev. Stainislaus v State of M.P. (1977) |
| Right involved | Article 25 — profess, practise, propagate |
| Max penalty | Rs 1 lakh or up to 30% of the contribution |
Mnemonic / Memory Hook
“PPP but not C” — Article 25 lets you Profess, Practise and Propagate, but Stainislaus says it does NOT let you Convert. And the new FCRA Schedule echoes it: charity yes, conversion no.
Practice Quiz — 10 CLAT-Style Questions
Click an option to reveal the answer and explanation.
