Funding Peaceful Protests Cannot Be an “Undesirable Purpose”: Kerala High Court Sets Aside FCRA Renewal Rejections

Case Title: Save A Family Plan India vs. Union of India and Ors. & Kerala Social Service Forum vs. Union of India and Ors.

Court: Kerala High Court

Citation: 2026:KER:61621 (W.P.(C) No. 42996 of 2025); 2026:KER:61636 (W.P.(C) No. 43936 of 2025)

Date of Judgement: August 12 2026

Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas, J.

Key Takeaway 

The Kerala High Court, in two connected writ petitions decided on the same day, struck down orders of the FCRA Wing of the Ministry of Home Affairs refusing to renew the FCRA registration of two Kerala-based charitable organisations (Save A Family Plan India and Kerala Social Service Forum), and reinstating the FC registration status of one of the non-profits. The Court held that funding a peaceful protest cannot, by itself, be treated as an “undesirable purpose” under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 (FCRA). The Court also held that FCRA renewal applications cannot be rejected without giving proper reasons, even where the government relies on a report from a security agency.

The judgement reinforces that FCRA rejection and cancellation orders can be challenged before courts, particularly where they are not supported by clear reasons or evidence. 

Background

Both petitioners, Kerala Social Service Forum, a state-level body coordinating the social action initiatives of 32 Catholic Diocesan Social Service Societies, and Save a Family Plan India, a public charitable trust running community development programmes, had held FCRA registration without interruption since 1985 and had applied for renewal under Section 16 of the FCRA in 2021. In each case, the renewal application was rejected years later through a terse e-mail communication that did no more than cite that the renewal applications were rejected under Sections 7(a), 12(4)(f)(i), 12(4)(f)(iii) and 12(4)(ii) of the FCRA, without disclosing any reason for the refusal.

Their renewal applications filed under Section 32 of the FCRA were also dismissed by the Central Government based on a passing reference to an Intelligence Bureau report. The report alleged that the organisations had, directly or through other NGOs, funded protests against the Adani Vizhinjam Port project.

The petitioners denied funding the protests and stated that their transfers to other FCRA-registered organisations were made for welfare activities. They also argued that the government had not given proper reasons for rejecting their renewal applications. The Centre argued that receiving foreign contribution is not a fundamental right and that the FCRA allows the government to restrict foreign funding where national interest or security is involved. An Intelligence Bureau report was also placed before the Court in a sealed cover.

What Happened in This Case

The Court examined whether the material relied upon by the government actually established a connection between the petitioners and the Vizhinjam protests. It found that the report did not establish a direct financial trail between the petitioners and the protestors.

The petitioners were also not included in the government's own list of NGOs allegedly involved in the protests. The Court then considered a larger question: even if the NGOs had funded peaceful protests, could that conduct be treated as an “undesirable purpose” under the FCRA?

The Court answered this in the negative.

Key Findings of the Kerala High Court

1. No Direct Financial Link was Established

Having examined the Intelligence Bureau reports in both cases, the Court found that fifteen of the sixteen questions in the standard format squarely favoured the petitioners. There was no adverse finding on diversion of funds, sedition, or any statutory violation. The sole adverse reference appeared in the “recommendation” column. 

In the case of Kerala Social Service Forum, it alleged that the Kerala Catholic Bishops Council, with which the petitioner is affiliated, had supported the Vizhinjam agitation. In the case of Save a Family Plan India, it alleged that funds transferred to another FCRA-registered NGO, TSSS, had been further diverted by that NGO to two other bodies, SAKHI and SEWA, which were said to have supported the agitators. 

In neither case did the report trace any direct or indirect financial trail from the petitioner to the protestors. In the Kerala Social Service Forum matter, the petitioner did not even figure among the twenty-nine NGOs or five actively FCRA-registered organisations that the report itself identified as participants in the agitation.

2. Funding a Peaceful Protest is Not an “Undesirable Purpose”

The Court held that the right to protest peacefully is a fundamental right flowing from Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(c) of the Constitution. The court held that even assuming, for the sake of argument, that some financial support had reached the Vizhinjam protestors, whose agitation the Court noted was confined to slogans, fasting, and strikes, with no evidence of violence, and whose criminal prosecutions had since been withdrawn by the government, this could not be characterised as "undesirable" under Section 12(4)(a)(vi) of the FCRA. The term "undesirable purpose" must be rooted in a legal prohibition or demonstrable public injury, and cannot be stretched to cover executive or administrative disapproval of dissent.

3. FCRA Rejection Orders Must Give Reasons

The Court held that an FCRA renewal rejection order must contain reasons. In the present case, the rejection orders did not properly consider the explanations given by the petitioners. They also did not explain why the petitioners could be held responsible for the subsequent use of funds by separate FCRA-registered organisations. The Court stressed that an order without reasons is not a proper exercise of legal power.

4. Security Agency Reports Do Not Automatically Remove the Duty to Give Reasons

The government relied on the Intelligence Bureau report and argued that national security considerations justified withholding the material. The Court held that the mere existence of a security agency report does not automatically allow the government to withhold reasons for its decision. Otherwise, authorities could reject an FCRA application by simply referring to a security report without explaining the basis of the rejection. The Court also found that the material placed before it did not justify completely withholding the reasons on national security grounds.

Conclusion

The judgement is significant for organisations receiving foreign contributions as it reinforces that the government's power under the FCRA must be exercised within the limits of law. The Court made it clear that funding a peaceful protest cannot, by itself, be treated as an undesirable purpose under the FCRA. It also reinforced the requirement for authorities to give clear and reasoned orders when rejecting FCRA renewal applications. The judgement further indicates that an NGO cannot automatically be held responsible for the use of funds by another FCRA-registered organisation without evidence connecting it to the alleged activity. The Court directed the authorities to pass fresh, reasoned orders within three months. In one of the cases, the Court also directed that the existing FCRA registration would continue in the meantime, allowing the organisation to utilise funds already received pending the fresh decision.

FCRA Litigation Won by Non-profits

Cases in which NGOs prevailed, in whole or part, in Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act matters

Case	Court & Date	Citation / Case No.	What the Non-profit Won
Greenpeace India Society vs. Union of India	Delhi High Court, January 2015	W.P. (C) 5749/2014	Court directed the Ministry of Home Affairs to unfreeze roughly ₹1.87 crore of foreign contributions and allow the NGO to operate its accounts; the blanket freeze and blocking of FCRA inflows was set aside.
Indian Social Action Forum (INSAF) vs. Union of India	Supreme Court, 6 March 2020	2020 SCC OnLine SC 310	Supreme Court read down Rules 3(v) and 3(vi) of the FCRA Rules: NGOs engaged in social or economic welfare do not lose FCRA eligibility merely for using protest or agitational methods; only genuine 'active politics or party politics' is caught.
Centre for Wildlife Studies (CWS) vs. Union of India	Karnataka High Court, 25 June 2024	W.P. No. 27301 of 2023	Cancellation of FCRA registration quashed. The 'reasonable opportunity of being heard' before cancellation requires an actual personal hearing, not merely a show-cause notice, given the grave consequences including the three-year re-registration bar under Section 14(3).
Indian Social Action Forum (INSAF) vs. Union of India	Delhi High Court, 24 July 2025	W.P. (C) 10199/2016	A one-line email rejection of the FCRA renewal application was set aside as 'complete non-application of mind' and a breach of natural justice; the department was directed to reconsider with reasons.
Save A Family Plan India & Kerala Social Service Forum vs. Union of India	Kerala High Court, August 2026	W.P.(C) No. 42996 of 2025);  and  W.P.(C) No. 43936 of 2025	Refusal to renew FCRA registration quashed. Financing a peaceful protest is not a valid ground to deny renewal; the right to protest is integral to democracy, and rejection orders must give substantive reasons rather than bare statutory citations.

These cases decided in favour of non-profits sit alongside Noel Harper vs. Union of India ( W.P. (C) No. 566/2021), in which the Supreme Court upheld the restrictive 2020 FCRA amendments against a challenge.