Mizoram Chief Minister Lalduhoma met Union Home Minister Amit Shah on Thursday. (File Photo)Mizoram Chief Minister Lalduhoma on Thursday met Union Home Minister Amit Shah and handed over a memorandum, expressing concerns over the proposed Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2026. Speaking to The Indian Express after the meeting, Lalduhoma said Shah assured him that the Bill will not have any retrospective provision. “The Home Minister assured me that the retrospective clause will not be there,” Lalduhoma said. According to him, Shah also indicated that the Bill is likely to be taken up in the Lok Sabha on August 12.The assurance comes amid growing concern among Christian organisations over provisions in the proposed legislation governing assets created through foreign contributions. The Indian Express reported on Wednesday that the Centre was likely to drop the retrospective clause before introducing the Bill in Parliament. Sources had also indicated that the government wanted the legislation to be debated in Parliament rather than passed amid disruptions.Jonathan Lalremruata, adviser and coordinator of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of India (CBCI), had told The Indian Express that a delegation of the bishops’ body had received a similar assurance from Shah during a recent meeting. “When the CBCI delegation met the Home Minister, we were promised that the law will not be retrospective,” Lalremruata had said.A senior BJP leader had said the assurance formed part of the party’s outreach to minority communities. “It is a promise that the BJP has given to the minority groups,” the leader had said. Another BJP leader from the South said the Bill would “demolish all the propaganda by the Congress and other vested interests that this is targeting Christians”.The Bill has become politically sensitive for the BJP because many churches and institutions run by Christian organisations have been built using foreign contributions regulated under the FCRA. With the party seeking to expand its footprint among Christians, particularly in Kerala, it is keen to address concerns over the proposed law.A senior government official had told The Indian Express that the objective of the Bill was to ensure continuity in the management of institutions if there was a break in their FCRA registration. “Basically, it is to ensure that there is proper management of the institution if there is a discontinuity. There will be an interim management which will take care of the property and, if there is a return of the original owner or institution, it will be handed back to them. We are very clear that a religious institution should be managed according to the practices of the religion to which it belongs. The Bill has been drafted accordingly,” the official had said.The official had also said the government wanted the Bill to be debated before being passed. “The government wants the Bill to be discussed in Parliament. So it can be taken up only if there is an atmosphere for debate and passage,” the official had said.Story continues below this adThe controversy centres on a new chapter proposed to be inserted into the FCRA. Section 14B introduces the concept of “cessation” of an FCRA certificate, deeming a certificate to have ceased if an organisation does not apply for renewal, its renewal is refused, or it expires without being renewed. Section 16A provides that once a certificate has ceased, foreign contributions and assets created from them would vest in a government-designated authority. If the organisation subsequently secures a fresh or renewed registration, the assets may be returned. Otherwise, they would permanently vest with the authority, which could transfer them to government departments or agencies or dispose of them in accordance with the law.The provision that drew the sharpest criticism was Section 16B, which applied the new framework to assets already vested under the earlier law before the amendment came into force. Critics argued that, read together with Sections 14B and 16A, it could potentially bring within the new framework organisations whose FCRA registrations had lapsed years ago, even if they had stopped receiving foreign donations and were functioning entirely on domestic funds. The government, however, has maintained that this was not the intended effect of the legislation and is now set to remove the retrospective provision before taking up the Bill.“There is nothing for the Christian community to fear in the Bill. This Act was enacted by the UPA government. In the Amendment Bill, there is no retrospective clause,” a Union Minister said.