What FCRA Amendments Mean for NGO Sector
- Objectives and Rationale behind FCRA 2010
- Objective Behind FCRA Amendment 2020
- Challenging Constitutional Validity of Section 8 of FCRA, 2010
- Traditional Classification Test
- Excessive Discretion
- Excessive Discretion to Central Government to Legislate a Penal Provision
- Challenges Faced by the NGO Sector Under the FCRA 2020 Regime
- Challenge for NGOs
- Recent Amendments in FCRA Rules 2011
The Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Act, 2020 was introduced in Lok Sabha on September 20, 2020, to amend the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act of 2010. It regulates the acceptance and utilisation of foreign contribution by individuals, associations and companies. Foreign contribution is the donation or transfer of any currency, security or article by a foreign source.
Objectives and Rationale behind FCRA 2010
The Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Bill was introduced in Parliament by the United Progressive government in 2006 and was enacted in September 2010, repealing the FCRA of 1976. According to the Statement of Objects and Reasons attached to the bill, it was intended to bring about large-scale changes because of the following reasons:
- Internal security scenario had changed (what had changed was not specified);
- The influence of voluntary organisations had increased;
- The use of communication and information technology had spread;
- There was a quantum leap in the amount of foreign contribution received; and
- There was large-scale growth in the number of registered organisations (under FCRA 1976).
Objective Behind FCRA Amendment 2020
In his statement in the Parliament, the Minister of State for Home Affairs, Nityanand Rai, said that the amendments were intended to bring about “greater transparency” and were “not against NGOs or an attack against a religion or community.” He added that it would not stop foreign contribution and that it was in the interest of non-profits doing good work. He also mentioned that it was meant to “stop misuse of foreign funds by some people” and was required for an atmanirbhar Bharat (a self-reliant India) and aimed to ensure that foreign funds were spent in the right direction.[i]
“Foreign contribution” means the donation, delivery or transfer made by any foreign source —
of any article, not being an article given to a person as a gift for his personal use, if the market value, in India, of such article, on the date of such gift, is not more than such sum as may be specified from time to time, by the Central Government by the rules made by it in this behalf;
of any currency, whether Indian or foreign; of any security as defined in clause (h) of Section 2 of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 (42 of 1956) and includes any foreign security as defined in clause (o) of Section 2 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (42 of 1999).
Explanation 1. A donation, delivery or transfer of any article, currency or foreign security referred to in this clause by any person who has received it from any foreign source, either directly or through one or more persons, shall also be deemed to be a foreign contribution within the meaning of this clause.
Explanation 2. The interest accrued on the foreign contribution deposited in any bank referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 17 or any other income derived from the foreign contribution or interest thereon shall also be deemed to be foreign contribution within the meaning of this clause.
Explanation 3. Any amount received, by any person from any foreign source in India, by way of fee (including fees charged by an educational institution in India from foreign student) or towards cost in lieu of goods or services rendered by such person in the ordinary course of his business, trade or commerce whether within India or outside India or any contribution received from an agent of a foreign source towards such fee or cost shall be excluded from the definition of foreign contribution within the meaning of this clause.
“Foreign hospitality” means any offer, not being a purely casual one, made in cash or kind by a foreign source for providing a person with the costs of travel to any foreign country or territory or with free boarding, lodging, transport or medical treatment.
Challenging Constitutional Validity of Section 8 of FCRA, 2010
Section 8 of the FCRA of 2010 appears to be constitutionally invalid for the following two reasons as per Article 14 of India’s Constitution:
Discrimination, based on an impermissible or invalid classification;
Excessive delegation of powers; conferment of uncanalised and unguided powers on the executive, whether in the form of delegated legislation or by way of conferment of authority to pass administrative orders—if such conferment is without any guidance, control, or checks, it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
On the first two aspects of invalid classification and excessive discretion, reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court of India in Subramanian Swamy v. CBI (2014), 8 SCC 682 at para 49, wherein Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act of 1946 was held to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution since it created special privileges for certain persons by prescribing that the DSPE shall not conduct any inquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed under the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1988 (49 of 1988) except with the previous approval of the Central Government where such allegation relates to:
(a) The employees of the Central Government of the level of Joint Secretary and above; and
(b) Officers appointed by the Central Government in corporations established by or under any Central Act, government companies, societies and local authorities owned or controlled by that government.
Under para 59, the court held as follows:
“The corrupt public servants, whether high or low, are birds of the same feather and must be confronted with the process of investigation and inquiry equally. Based on the position or status in service, no distinction can be made between public servants against whom there are allegations amounting to an offence under the PC Act, 1988.”
Traditional Classification Test
There are other central legislations that regulate public trusts in the general sense, one of them being the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Section 8 of the FCRA creates restrictions only on those persons who receive a foreign contribution, which creates a classification based on “source of contribution.” Two major categories which emerge from the reading of Section 8 are:
- “Persons” with foreign funding; and
- “Persons” without foreign funding.
Therefore, if a society registered under the Societies Registration Act of 1860 receives contribution/ donation only from domestic sources, then there is no restriction by law for the society to utilise such donation towards administrative expenses in excess of 20%. Whereas if the same society receives foreign contribution/donation from a foreign source, then it can only utilise 20% of it towards administrative expenses and not more unless with prior approval from the Central Government. No reasoning is provided by the lawmakers on why this classification is necessary for imposing restrictions on the use of foreign contribution towards administrative expenses or to prevent a “breach of trust.”
The object sought to be achieved by the inclusion of Section 8 in the 2020 amendment is to prevent a breach of trust and not mere protection from foreign influence on Indian politics (which has been dealt with by the 2020 amendment, which has increased the scope of the definition of a public servant) or to maintain the integrity and harmony of India.
Therefore, if breach of trust is the reason and the object to be achieved, then there is no reason provided by the legislature as to why the same aforementioned restriction should not be imposed also on the organisations/persons who receive contribution domestically. It is important to note here that both the FCRA and the Societies Registration Act were enacted by the Parliament.
The object and purpose of enacting restriction on utilisation of foreign contribution towards administrative expenses is ‘breach of trust” because if the object was to seek protection from foreign influence on Indian politics or to maintain the integrity and harmony of India, then there should have been a prohibition or restriction on acceptance of foreign contribution as well. However, presently, the restriction is only on the utilisation of foreign contributions towards administrative expenses.
In light of the above, Section 8 of the FCRA of 2010, along with its FCRA 2020 amendment, fails the traditional classification test since it is not necessary to create the classification based on the source of funds to achieve its object and purpose, which is to ensure that there is no “breach of trust” by the “persons” who act in a fiduciary duty towards the doners and the beneficiaries.
No Legal Guidance
Section 8 provides the right to a “person” to seek prior approval to utilise foreign contribution towards administrative expenses in excess of 20% but does not provide any grounds or legislative guidance to the Central Government for deciding:
- Whether to grant prior approval or not;
- Whom to grant prior approval and whom not to grant such approval;
- To what extent to grant prior approval (percentage of expenses allowed/ disallowed);
- When to approve/disapprove (no timeline provided);
- Whether to grant oral or written approval;
- Whether it can grant temporary approval or not; and
- Grounds for disapproval.
In addition to the above, there is no procedure prescribed in the 2010 Act or the FCRA 2011 Rules for making an application for prior approval, the timeline for deciding such application and the grounds for approval or disapproval. Lack of reasons or guidance in the legislation for rejecting an application is a ground to declare such discretion as unguided and therefore violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
There is also a lack of human resources in the government’s FCRA department, which can add to the misuse of discretion and give excessive discretion to the executive as the government can deal with an organisation or a person as it wishes to.
Excessive Discretion to Central Government to Legislate a Penal Provision
If a person moves an application well in advance under Section 8 of FCRA Act of 2010 to seek prior approval but receives no response and goes ahead to utilise foreign contribution towards “administrative expenses” and later receives disapproval, then the person can be prosecuted under Section 37 of the Act (even though it is with “prior sanction” of the Central Government).
Because the FCRA or its Rules do not specify the grounds for disapproval, it can be argued that Section 8 grants excessive power and discretion to the Central Government to legislate a penal provision, i.e. by stating the grounds of disapproval after the foreign contribution is used in excess of 20% towards administrative expenses. It provides the Central Government with excessive and manifestly arbitrary discretion to apply Section 8 retrospectively on a person and then prosecute the person under Section 37 of the FCRA. The “person” gets to know later on that what it has done is illegal/unlawful and is apprised of the reasons for such illegality/unlawfulness after the commission of the act.
Challenges Faced by the NGO Sector Under the FCRA 2020 Regime
Prohibition to accept foreign contribution: Under the Act, certain persons are prohibited to accept any foreign contribution. These include election candidates, editor or publisher of a newspaper, judges, government servants, members of any legislature, and political parties, among others. The 2020 amendment adds public servants (as defined under the Indian Penal Code) to this list. Public servant includes any person who is in service or pay of the government or remunerated by the government for the performance of any public duty.
Purportedly, the reason for the inclusion of “public servant” is to prevent persons discharging public duty from being influenced by foreign sources and to avoid a conflict of interest in their working under the government.
Challenge for NGOs
It may hamper the welfare role of the government since the inclusion of the term “public servant” will now preclude compassionate public servants from undertaking activities that are intended for public welfare.
Further, academicians and researchers may no longer be able to sustain their expenses and some may incur debt since those engaged by the government institutions/universities would have to withdraw from NGOs that receive foreign contribution. Academicians and researchers spend most of their youth gaining expertise or knowledge in a certain field by taking up research positions in universities, schools, hospitals, etc. and are thus deprived of early income - as opposed to professionals in other fields who graduate out of college and begin to work full time. Providing their expertise to NGOs is a good source of additional income for such academicians and researchers. And NGOs will also lose the assistance they receive from academicians and researchers.
Moreover, positions in statutory and quasi-government bodies may become unattractive to the public since they usually pay lower remunerations.
In the 21st century, the government is seen as the most efficient and largest data bank. Public servants employed in different departments of the government are most suited for advising NGOs on particular issues. Such public servants would now be prevented from accepting foreign funds and utilising the same for the benefit of the public.
Transfer of foreign contribution: Under the FCRA of 2010, the foreign contribution could not be transferred to any other person unless such person is also registered to accept foreign contribution (or has obtained prior permission under the Act to obtain foreign contribution). The 2020 amendment prohibits the transfer of foreign contribution to any other person. The term “person” under the Act includes an individual, an association, or a registered company.
The rationale behind the amendment seems to be to force NGOs to maintain greater transparency in their utilisation of funds and to avoid the several tiers of exchange of money which was found laborious for the government to trace.
In 2020, about a quarter of India’s NGO funding — roughly $2.2 billion — came from foreign donors.[ii] Social issues in India are complex (most recent being hunger, migration, and vulnerable workers) and each NGO does not possess a panacea for all issues. Collaboration is the indispensable means of public welfare in the country given the vast differences in culture, race, geography, et. al.
Smaller and less visible grassroots organisations which do not have the means and access to foreign entities and persons or to submit detailed proposals for grants from funders abroad would be rooted out of doing noble work. Smaller entities also do not have the means to comply with the FCRA and other complementary laws.
Section 7 may also lead to unemployment or reduction of remuneration in the NGO sector.
The new regulations have “paralysed” India’s non-profit sector, a group of 13 NGOs said in a letter that was recently sent to various Indian and U.S. government bodies and shared with The New York Times. The regulatory changes have forced NGOs to “divert scarce time, bandwidth and human resources” toward compliance rather than delivering relief during the pandemic, the letter said.[iii]
Further, the Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, adopted by the UN General Assembly with the consensus of India and all other States, provides in Article 13 that everyone has the right “individually and in association with others” to “solicit, receive and utilize resources” for protecting human rights.[iv]
Reduction in the use of foreign contribution for administrative purposes: Under the 2010 Act, a person who receives foreign contribution must use it only for the purpose for which the contribution is received. Further, they must not use more than 50% of the contribution for meeting administrative expenses. The 2020 amendment reduces this limit to 20%.
The rationale behind the amendment seems to be to make NGOs more accountable to their foreign donors by spending a larger portion of the funds on the welfare project.
Expenses such as rent, travel and hiring of talent are subsumed under the ambit of administrative expenses as per the FCRA Rules. Smaller NGOs cannot be expected to afford rent, travel and recruitment of personnel within a meagre 20% of the funding since the funding of smaller NGOs is far lesser than their larger counterparts in places like Delhi.
Section 8 may also lead to unemployment or reduction of remuneration in the NGO sector.
Registration of certain persons with the Central Government:
(1) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, no person having a definite cultural, economic, educational, religious or social programme shall accept foreign contribution unless such person obtains a certificate of registration from the Central Government:
Provided that any association registered with the Central Government under section 6 or granted prior permission under that section of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976, as it stood immediately before the commencement of this Act, shall be deemed to have been registered or granted prior permission, as the case may be, under this Act and such registration shall be valid for five years from the date on which this section comes into force.
(2) Every person referred to in sub-section (1) may, if it is not registered with the Central Government under that sub-section, accept any foreign contribution only after obtaining the prior permission of the Central Government and such prior permission shall be valid for the specific purpose for which it is obtained and from the specific source:
Provided that the Central Government, based on any information or report, and after holding a summary inquiry, has reason to believe that a person who has been granted prior permission has contravened any of the provisions of this Act, it may, pending any further inquiry, direct that such person shall not utilise the unutilised foreign contribution or receive the remaining portion of foreign contribution which has not been received or, as the case may be, any additional foreign contribution, without prior approval of the Central Government:
Provided further that if the person referred to in sub-section (1) or in this sub-section has been found guilty][v] of violation of any of the provisions of this Act or the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976, the unutilised or unreceived amount of foreign contribution shall not be utilised or received, as the case may be, without the prior approval of the Central Government.
The 2020 Amendment to Section 11 acts as an additional hurdle for NGOs since it has a high propensity to be misused as a tool to discourage and threaten certain persons from receiving foreign funds as the government can give any frivolous or opaque reason to initiate inquiry against an NGO which has ideals other than that of the government.
Delay in the administrative and judicial arms of the government is commonplace in India. Awaiting the outcome of an inquiry, or investigation or case pending before a court may leave some NGOs with no income and work. There are already over 100 pending cases in High Courts across the country concerning the cancellation of FCRA licenses.[vi]
There is no provision of recompense or insurance for any losses caused to the NGOs.
The UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights to Freedom of Assembly and Association has highlighted that access to resources is important for NGOs not only for the very existence of associations but also to guarantee the enjoyment of other human rights of those who benefit from the work of the organisations. In this connection, undue restrictions on funding will adversely affect the full range of civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights that the State is bound to protect.[vii]
Power of the Central Government to require Aadhaar number, etc., as identification document: Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the Central Government may require that any person who seeks prior permission or prior approval under Section 11, or makes an application for grant of certificate under Section 12, or, as the case may be, for renewal of certificate under Section 16, shall provide as an identification document, the Aadhaar number of all its office bearers or Directors or other key functionaries, by whatever name called, issued under the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 (18 of 2016), or a copy of the Passport or Overseas Citizen of India Card, in case of a foreigner.
Aadhaar for registration: The 2020 amendment adds that any person seeking prior permission, registration or renewal of registration would have to provide the Aadhaar details of all its office bearers, directors or key functionaries, as an identification document. In the case of a foreigner, they must provide a copy of the passport or the Overseas Citizen of India card for identification.
The greater scrutiny of key-functionaries of NGOs will create a fear psychosis in the minds of talented professionals (especially those whose views and research are conflicting with that of the government) from providing their services to NGOs. Informed dissent is a vital part of a vibrant democracy. Many individuals expressing opinions or contributing to the data backing such informed opinions will be perceived as soft targets since it becomes increasingly easier to identify, track, threaten, curtail and violate the liberty of such persons if the government has access to their personal and private information through Aadhaar.
Suspension of registration: Under the 2010 Act, the government could suspend the registration of a person for a period not exceeding 180 days. The 2020 amendment adds that such suspension may be extended up to an additional 180 days.
The rationale for this change is unclear and for the most part not decipherable.
This will provide the government with the unfettered right to suspend the registration certificates for almost a year without having any obligation to provide reasons, much less legally sustainable reasons. Such discretion is to be judicially exercised, yet in most cases, it has been observed to be misused. Recently, the Indian government raided the premises and froze the bank accounts of Amnesty International, forcing it to close its India operations. Amnesty said the actions were reprisals for criticising India’s human rights record. The government said the organisation had violated India’s rules on foreign funding.[viii]
Each misuse or abuse of such discretionary powers can — at the expense of the suffering NGO — land up in court which can at best result in delayed justice. Moreover, the relief is only individual in nature and will not be a blanket court order. Therefore, the NGO would have to make concerted and, often, expensive efforts to approach the judicial forums which furthermore adds to the administrative cost (which have now been capped at 20%).
Extended suspension of the FCRA account seriously cripples the flow of funds for the immensely valuable work in the public sector performed by NGOs.
The amendment has also not granted sufficient time for the FCRA entities to comply with the new changes. Thus, the new amendment has caused further and sudden degeneration of human resources and funds to seek expert legal, accounting and policy help from professionals and to knock the doors of courts for striking down of the suspension and in the interim to seek an order staying the operation of alleged illegal government actions.
Section 14A & 15
Surrender of certificate: The 2020 amendment allows the Central Government to permit a person to surrender their registration certificate. The government may do so if, post an inquiry, it is satisfied that such person has not contravened any provisions of the Act, and the management of its foreign contribution (and related assets) has been vested in an authority prescribed by the government.
The provision does not specify the powers and duties of the authority prescribed by the government. The law does not provide sufficient information and disclosures for the “person” under the Act to make an informed decision to surrender the FCRA certificate.
Another criticism of the provision is that it prohibits the transfer of assets to another FCRA NGO. If a certain NGO has been non-compliant or has contravened any provision of the FCRA or otherwise, it does not ipso facto lead to disqualification of all other compliant NGOs which could be adept in making use of the funds and assets of the NGO. But the law provides only two options to the NGOs under the FCRA, i.e. to either be compliant or give all funds to the government. No third option of transfer to another NGO has been provided.
Renewal of license: Under the Act, every person who has been given a certificate of registration must renew the certificate within six months of expiration. The 2020 amendment provides that the government may conduct an inquiry before renewing the certificate to ensure that the person making the application: (i) is not fictitious or benami, (ii) has not been prosecuted or convicted for creating communal tension or indulging in activities aimed at religious conversion, and (iii) has not been found guilty of diversion or misutilisation of funds, among others conditions.
The amended 2020 provision provides identical tests for the renewal of a license as are required in the fresh registration process. The legal distinction between the registration and the renewal seems to have disappeared.
It also increases the workload of employees in the government’s FCRA department, which is already understaffed.
Furthermore, the new set of hurdles for renewal should be seen in light of huge delays by the government in renewing the licenses, which may harm the welfare work carried out by NGOs across India.
FCRA account: Under the Act, a registered person must accept foreign contribution only in a single branch of a scheduled bank specified by the government. However, they may open more accounts in other banks for utilisation of the contribution. As per the 2020 amendment, the foreign contribution must be received only in an account designated by the bank as an “FCRA account” in such branch of the State Bank of India (SBI) in New Delhi as notified by the Central Government. No funds other than the foreign contribution should be received or deposited in that account. The person may open another FCRA account in any scheduled bank of their choice for keeping or utilising the received contribution.
The intent appears to be to centralise the inflow of funds, to enable the government to supervise and monitor NGOs easily as well as to cross-verify the donors, amounts and purposes of funding.
A single branch providing facility to all NGOs in the country can be described as no less than an illogical and unreasonable requirement. A single branch of the SBI in New Delhi will not have enough human resources to approve applications of NGOs in thousands before the last date of compliance.
Of the 21,490 NGOs that filed FCRA returns for 2018-19, only 1,488 were registered in Delhi. That’s only 7% of the NGOs. Thus, this new rule will require functionaries of about 20,000 NGOs spread across India to come to Delhi to open a pass-through bank account. In other words, 93% of the FCRA NGOs are registered outside Delhi, and will now have to open a bank account in Delhi.[ix]
Recent Amendments in FCRA Rules 2011
(f) A person seeking prior permission for receipt of a specific amount from a specific donor for carrying out specific activities or projects mentioned in clause (c) of sub-section (4) of section 12 of the Act shall meet the following criteria, namely: -
(i) Submit a specific commitment letter from the donor indicating the amount of foreign contribution and the purpose for which it is proposed to be given;
(ii) For the Indian recipient persons and foreign donor organisations having common members, prior permission shall be granted to the person subject to it satisfying the following conditions, namely: -
(A) The chief functionary of the recipient person shall not be a part of the donor organisation;
(B) Seventy-five per cent. of the office-bearers or members of the governing body of the person shall not be members or employees of the foreign donor organisation;
(C) In case of foreign donor organisation being a single individual that individual shall not be the chief functionary or office bearer of the recipient person; and
(D) In case of a single foreign donor, seventy-five per cent. of the office bearers or members of the governing body of the recipient person shall not be the family members or close relatives of the donor.
Clause (i) of Rule 9(1A)(f) discourages and imposes an unnecessary burden on the foreign donors who are individuals to submit a specific commitment letter indicating a specific amount and purpose of donation.
It will also create an onerous task on the Indian recipient to raise donations in tranches and segregate the donations based on different purposes where such NGOs provide public welfare in more than one way.
The chief-functionary and office-bearers or members of the governing body of the recipient NGO, if in excess of 75%, would have to resign from their roles if they are part of the foreign donor organisation. It exacerbates the non-collaboration and discourages harmony between global international NGOs and grassroots NGOs in India.
Permission for receipt of foreign contribution in application for obtaining prior permission: If the value of foreign contribution on the date of final disposal of an application for obtaining prior permission under clause (a) of sub-rule (1) of rule 9 is over rupees one crore, the Central Government may permit receipt of foreign contribution in such instalments, as it may deem fit:
Provided that the second and subsequent instalment shall be released after submission of proof of utilisation of seventy-five percent. of the foreign contribution received in the previous instalment and after field inquiry of the utilisation of foreign contribution.
Additional obstruction has been placed on NGOs by controlling rather than regulating those that are set to receive funds in excess of Rs. 1 crore. They may be forced to receive funds in instalments set by the government as per its arbitrary discretion.
Proof of utilisation of 75% of foreign funds and field inquiry has been made mandatory before receiving the remaining 25% of the foreign contribution.
NGOs will have to form multiple budgets and operational plans at various times, such as on the date of application, the date of the decision of final disposal of an application for obtaining prior permission, before utilisation of 75% of foreign funds, and all of which thereafter will be subject to further amendment based on the directions imposed by the Central Government.
Change of designated bank account, name, address, aims, objectives or Key members of the association: A person who has been granted a certificate of registration under section 12 or prior permission under section 11 of the Act shall intimate in electronic form within fifteen days, of any change in the following, namely:
(i) Name of the association or its address within the State for which registration/ prior permission has been granted under the Act [in Form FC-6A];
(ii) Its nature, aims and objects and registration with local/relevant authorities [in Form FC-6B];
(iii) Bank and/or branch of the bank and/or designated foreign contribution account number in Form FC-6C;
(iii) (a) Bank and/or branch of the bank for the purpose of utilising the foreign contribution after it has been received in Form FC-6D; and
(iv) Office bearers or key functionaries or members mentioned in the application for grant of registration or prior permission or renewal of registration, as the case may be, in Form FC-6E.
Provided that the change shall be effective only after final approval by the Central Government.[x]
NGOs will have to wait for approval by the Central Government for every such change as mentioned under Rule 17A. The Central Government has already come under severe criticism for delays in performing its functions under the FCRA law. The new amendment to the rule may lead to more delays.
The rule has changed the role of the Central Government from being a regulator to a controller by providing prior approval for changes in the office bearers or key functionaries or members of the NGOs.
The 2020 amendment has hampers charitable work being done in the country by the NGO sector. Performing such charitable work is part of the duties of the government, for which the NGO sector is only a helping hand. The motive of the government is questionable because it has targeted only the foreign funding of NGOs, while imposing no such restrictions on domestically funded NGOs.
[ii] India Philanthropy Report 2021 by Bain & Company
[iv] Article 13, Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, UN Doc. (1999).
[v] Amendment 2020
[vi] Centre for Social Impact and Philanthropy, “Advocacy, Rights and Civil Society: The Opportunity for Indian Philanthropy”, Ashoka University, (2019), page 25, https://www.sdgphilanthropy.org/system/files/2019-01/Advocacy%2C%20Rights%20%26%20Civil%20Society%3A%20The%20Opportunity %20for%20Indian%20Philanthropy.pdf
[vii] Maina Kiai, Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, UN Doc. A/HRC/23/29 (2013), para 9.
[x] 2020 amendment