‘No Donation Comes Free’: India’s Top Jurist Harish Salve Makes Case For Tougher FCRA Scrutiny In Blunt Chat With Arnab

New Delhi: In an extensive and at times blunt conversation with Republic Media Network’s Editor-in-Chief Arnab Goswami, King’s Counsel, former Solicitor General of India and Senior Supreme Court Advocate, Harish Salve strongly advocated for tightening scrutiny of foreign funding flowing into India. He asserted that no sovereign nation can afford to be casual when it comes to cross-border capital, and stressed that India should enforce the same level of diligence and discipline that other countries already apply as a matter of routine.

At the centre of the conversation was the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) and the amendments now being debated. Top Jurist Salve said that the public discussion has drifted away from substance. According to him, it has become more about perception management than about the actual provisions of the law. 

Harish Salve framed the controversy over the Foreign Contribution Regulation Amendment Bill 2026 as less about religion and more about national sovereignty. He stressed that every country guards the movement of capital, and India must do the same with the same seriousness applied elsewhere, emphasising that the issue is not whether foreign money comes in, but what purpose it serves once it does.

Senior Advocate Salve opened by placing the current debate in a longer pattern he has observed in Indian public life. Referring to the farm laws and the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), he asserted that opposition had often been built on narrative rather than detail, with slogans overtaking scrutiny. “Fashionable in India not to have a debate now,” he told Goswami, adding that “Detail missing in the debate in India on the FCRA Bill” and that “narrative is built up to defeat the real facts.” In his view, social media and one-liners have replaced a careful reading of law and intent.

Further, he widened the lens beyond the church and proselytisation, which had dominated the discussions across the nation. Acknowledging that about Rs 2300 crore of the around Rs 23,000-24,000 crore received last year went to churches, he stressed that the FCRA covers much more. According to Salve, the real risk lies in NGOs that are not engaged in social work but can be weaponized to fight corporate battles, weaponized against Indian industry, and weaponized against India's domestic growth. Citing projects like the $11 billion to $20 billion Nicobar development, he warned that organized funding could be used to stall strategic initiatives at a time when India is positioning itself as a manufacturing and innovation power.

The former Solicitor General linked the argument to a global context of narrative warfare and regime change. He pointed to the United States’ open talk of a “deep state", and to concerns in Washington about foreign interference in elections, to suggest that India too must protect its financial and digital borders. 

He even stated that sunlight and disclosure are the core of the law, which any recipient, whether a church, mosque, gurudwara, or NGO run by a lawyer’s spouse, should simply declare what money comes in and where it goes. He emphasised that transparency is “the best disinfectant", and without it, funded protests and campaigns can use India’s own freedoms to undermine the institutions.

Throughout the interview, India's Top Jurist Salve pushed back on claims that the amendment is anti-minority or anti-Christian. As someone born into a Christian family and baptized, he asserted that the government’s approach had never been about faith, pointing to his own appointments and work for the state as evidence. He concluded that the debate itself proves why control is needed. “A donation is suspect,” he said, questioning why wealthy nations that struggle with their own social problems would single out India for generosity. 

FCRA Debate Is About Money, Not Faith: Salve

The Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2026 has become the latest flashpoint in India's increasingly polarised debate over foreign funding, civil society and national sovereignty. During an extended conversation with Arnab Goswami, Senior Supreme Court Advocate Harish Salve underlined that much of the controversy surrounding the proposed changes had been driven by political narratives rather than close examination of what the law actually seeks to regulate. 

His central argument was straightforward, which is the FCRA is fundamentally a framework for monitoring foreign money entering India, and comparable restrictions on the movement and use of foreign capital exist in other countries. He said that the question should therefore be less about whether an organisation is a church, mosque, NGO, media outlet or other institution, and more about where the money comes from, what it is intended for and how it is ultimately spent.

The discussion ranged from religious conversion and protests to NGOs, corporate interests, news organisations, lawyers and the growing influence of social media. Arnab pressed repeatedly on the provisions concerning proselytisation, foreign contributions to political and media-linked organisations, and the proposed powers of a designated authority over assets when FCRA registration ends.

The most anticipated interview comes as Parliament considers the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill, introduced in the Lok Sabha on March 25 this year. The Bill remains pending in the Lok Sabha and is listed for consideration during the Monsoon Session. It proposes a framework for the provisional and, in specified circumstances, permanent vesting of foreign contributions and assets in a designated authority when an organisation's FCRA registration is cancelled, surrendered or ceases.

‘The Best Law Is Only As Good As Its Administration’

Harish Salve rejected the suggestion that the FCRA was inherently a new or unusually restrictive concept. Drawing comparisons with earlier controversies over the farm laws and the CAA, he complained that the Indian debate increasingly reduces complicated legislation to slogans and social-media narratives.

He recalled his experience of the FCRA regime, saying that the principal problem had historically been administration rather than the absence of statutory provisions. “The best law is only as good as its administration,” he said, suggesting that filing returns was meaningless if authorities failed to examine them.

In his view, the change since 2014 has been the greater rigor with which foreign-funded organisations are being scrutinised. He cited his own experience with an anti-smoking campaign involving an NGO and ITC, saying money from the US had funded people appearing against the corporation. Arnab used the example to question whether foreign-funded activism could sometimes intersect with commercial interests.

In response, Jurist Salve's bigger contention was that foreign funding could influence social and political activity without the recipient necessarily being conscious of the strategic consequences. He outlined that transparency, rather than the identity of the recipient, should be the first principle.

Religion, Conversion And The ‘Sunlight’ Test

A substantial portion of the interview focused on churches and the allegation that the Bill could disproportionately affect Christian organisations, a characterisation which the former Solicitor General rejected, stressing that the same regulatory principle should apply to churches, mosques, gurdwaras and other religious institutions.

Arnab pointed to the provisions dealing with religious purposes and proselytisation, asking whether ordinary religious education, including catechism in a Jesuit school, could subsequently be construed as an attempt to convert someone. Harish Salve responded that freedom of conscience remained intact, saying that a person could change religion voluntarily but financial inducements linked to conversion were a different matter.

He illustrated the distinction through an account from his childhood in tribal areas, explaining extreme poverty and a family experience involving discrimination over access to a village well. The King's Counsel said that it would be unacceptable for someone to offer food, healthcare or other essential assistance on the condition that a person changed faith. 

His proposed solution was disclosure, saying that an organisation should be able to state that it is preaching Christianity, distributing religious literature or organising sermons, but its expenditure should be visible. “Sunlight is the best disinfectant,” he said.

From Protests To Digital Narratives

During the conversation, the FCRA was connected to the expanding power of digital platforms, with Salve noting that the proliferation of smartphones and social media had made narrative-building dramatically easier. According to Harish Salve, the concern was not simply conventional political campaigning but the possibility of money financing apparently organic movements, saying, “If this kind of money is allowed to come into India, you are giving a weapon by which, as they say, they will use the very freedoms which the Constitution gives them to destroy the Constitution.” 

He linked this to India's democratic vulnerability, contrasting the country with China, where dissent can be suppressed by force. He emphasised that India cannot and should not follow that model, and therefore it's a challenge to protect democratic freedoms while preventing foreign money from being used to manipulate them.

Media, Lawyers And The Question Of Foreign Influence

The conversation also turned to news organisations, when Arnab Goswami outlined the Bill's restrictions on foreign contributions to political actors, judges, legislators and news-related entities. Reacting to the issue, India's Top Jurist Harish Salve pointed out that foreign investment in news has long been restricted.

He noted that allowing donations to circumvent existing foreign-investment limits would create an obvious regulatory loophole. “Why would anybody want to give a donation from outside to a news channel in India unless it is for promoting a point of view?” he asked.

Arnab raised another possible loophole, asking when a news organisation could establish itself overseas and operate digitally in India. Harish Salve acknowledged that digital regulation was a separate and unfinished challenge, saying policy would need to evolve around AI, social media and digital news.

Lawyers and lawyer-linked NGOs were also discussed, with the Senior Supreme Court Advocate saying that if an NGO was formally registered in a spouse's name, the foreign funding would still have to be disclosed and the expenditure accounted for. 

‘This Is A War Of Narratives’

The former Solicitor General of India also rejected arguments that the proposed law was selectively aimed at Christian organisations or not at the RSS. He clarified that in case an organisation received foreign money and breached the law, the same provisions should apply irrespective of the religious or ideological identity.

He disputed claims that the Bill would permit arbitrary seizure of property without safeguards. According to Salve, a hearing is available and an arbitrary order can be challenged before a court. The Bill's proposed designated-authority framework should therefore be judged on its legal operation rather than descriptions of an “Orwellian” state.

Responding to the narrative question, Harish Salve said, “Today, narrative rules the day.….. narratives do affect you. Like a lot of senior judges used to say, back in the day, we do not read newspapers because when I go into the court, I don't want to know if somebody has something to say about this. I must hear it from the lawyers, read it from the papers, decide and then read about it in the newspapers. So, that's the importance of judges staying away from narratives and being in the legal profession where everything is tested on cross-examination, everything is tested in a court on the anvil of truth. I realize how dangerous narratives are and the kind of things I have heard about the FCRA. It's a long-standing law.”

"The focus of this bill is not proselytizing. The focus of this bill is exposing, giving sunlight on what you are up to, and what we really need to prevent. Proselytizing is a very small part of the big picture. The big picture is that India today is at a stage when narrative building is very easy. The global explosion and the Indian explosion of digitalization have brought tremendous growth. Today, even in a village, on your phone, you can do transactions. India has the largest digital bank, etc. This brings certain problems with it. Today, the poorest person in the remotest area has access to YouTube, has access to Instagram, etc……So you have to be very sensitive to narrative building.”

The legislative debate has also intensified around the bill, with the government saying that the 2026 changes address administrative gaps and strengthen oversight. The revised FCRA Rules, notified on June 22, have already introduced changes involving registration, permissible activities, key functionaries and reporting. On June 30, Union Home Minister Amit Shah launched the FCRA 2.0 portal, designed to digitise applications, renewals and annual returns and enable more effective monitoring.

Meanwhile, the Opposition parties have demanded that the Bill either be withdrawn or sent to a Joint Parliamentary Committee, stating that the implications for civil society and minority organisations require greater scrutiny.

Wake Up! Cautions India's Top Jurist

During the conversation, Harish Salve spoke about India's economic rise, innovation, technology and a younger population, saying that the country's growing importance makes the question of foreign influence more consequential. He cited Indian start-ups, school tinkering laboratories and emerging technology companies as examples of a changing India.

He also questioned why wealthy Western countries would send substantial funds to address Indian social problems when they faced serious problems of their own. His comments about London, Europe, Gaza, refugees and protests were used to reinforce his argument that foreign donations should never be presumed to be purely altruistic.

His final proposition was deliberately provocative when he raised ethical questions, pointing out that before debating whether FCRA is too strict, India should ask who is supplying the money, why it is being supplied and what influence that money ultimately purchases. He insisted that the starting point of a donation should be scrutiny rather than assumptions of kindness.

“If somebody criticizes FCRA, I say, let's put FCRA second. First, answer my question. Who is this lovely person, who has so much money, he doesn't want to give it to Gaza? Where people are starving. See what has happened today…..How many people are going without a meal in that part of the world? What about Morocco? There are so many poorer countries in the world. Their heart doesn't bleed for them. What is happening in Somalia? What is happening in Ethiopia? What is happening in Congo? Their heart bleeds for India. The fourth largest economy. Wake up!," Salve said.

He concluded that the FCRA is ultimately about ensuring that India’s growth, driven by its villages, young entrepreneurs, and companies building satellites and drones, is not derailed by money used to manufacture dissent.

Also Read | S Gurumurthy's Speech on Gen Z's Mischaracterisation As Rebels By Western Commercial & Political Interests Sparks Wider Debate