CLAT POST AUGUST B - Polity and Governance

Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2026 : 1- 33; Center's opposition to Creamy Layer for SCs/STs: 34 - 55; NALSAR Controversy and the Powers of the BCI - 56 - 80

Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill 2026 - Status and action

Both Houses of Parliament approve referring the bill ot a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) on August 12. 2026, for detailed examination. It remains as the committee stage and has not changed the law yet.

Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill 2026 - Introduction date

Introduced in the Lok Sabha on March 25, 2026

Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill 2026 - JPC Composition

31 total members (21 from Lok Sabha nominated by the speaker, 10 from Rajya Sabha nominated by the Chairman).

Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill 2026 - JPC reporting deadline

Must submit its report by the last day of the first week of the Winter session.

FCRA Administrative & Portal updates - FCRA Amendment Rules, 2026

Separately notified by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) via notification S.O. 3272(E) on June 22, 2026.

FCRA Administrative & Portal Updates - FCRA 2.0 Portal

Officially launched by the MHA on June 30, 2026.

First FCRA enactment date and reason

Enacted in 1976 during emergency due to concerns over foreign interference through financial support to independent organizations.

1984 Amendment of FCRA

Made registration with MHA mandatory for NGOs receiving foreign funds, brought judges, widened def of foreign contributions and political party and added audit powers.

FCRA 2010

Replaced 1976 law, received Presidential assent on 26 Sept, 2010, introduced five-yearly renewal, stricter registration conditions, suspension, cancellation, cesting of assets and compounding of offences.

Rules and amendments after for FCRA

2011 - rules operationalized registration, designated accounts and reporting formats, further amendments in 2016 and 2018.

2020 Amendment Act of FCRA

Aadhaar or passport identification of office-bearers became mandatory. Receipts were confined to one State Bank of India (SBI) account in New Delhi. Transfer or sub-granting of foreign funds to any person or organisation was prohibited. The administrative-expense ceiling was cut from 50% to 20% and renewal made subject to government inquiry.

2022 rules of FCRA

2022 Rules raised the annual limit on remittances from relatives abroad from Rs 1 lakh to Rs 10 lakh

Noel Harper v. Union of India (2022)

SC Upheld FCRA, 2010 as a reasonable restriction of Article 19(1)© under Article 19(4)

Indian Social Action Forum (INSAF) v. Union of India (2020)

Court clarified that only organizations engaged in active or party politics are barred from receiving foreign contributions.

Rev Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1977)

Article 25 protects the right to propagate religion, but the decision held that this does not include the right to convert another person.

Entry into FCRA

• No foreign contributions w/o FCRA registration or prior permission

• Registration requires 3 years of operation and legal existence

Registration requirement legal reasoning

Under Societies Registration Act 1860, Indian Trusts Act, 1882, or the Companies Act, 2013

Eligibility for FCRA

• Eligible - Cultural, economic, educational, or social

• Not eligible - Religious conversions, communal disharmony, or sedition related activities

  • Politically related activity.

Validity of FCRA

Valid for 5 years and cancelled if not renewed before expiry.

Cancellation reasons of FCRA

• Violations

• lack of reasonable activity for 2 years

  • re-registration barred for 3 years.

Vesting of FCRA

Section 15, 2010 —> if cancelled, surrendered, or stopped, foreign contributions go under state gov authority.

Receipt, Utilization and Disclosure - SBI Account Mandatory

All foreign funds must enter through one main SBI branch account in New Delhi.

Receipt, Utilization and Disclosure - Admin Cap

Administrative expenses are capped at 20% of foreign contributions received.

Receipt, Utilisation & Disclosure - Reporting

Annual online disclosures (Form FC-4) are required for all receipts, spending, and donors.

Provisions of the Amendment Bill, 2026 - Designated Authority

Establishes an authority to manage, preserve, and dispose of assets/funds for organizations whose registration is lost, surrendered, or denied.

Provisions of the Amendment Bill, 2026 - Asset Lifecycle

Assets vest provisionally and return if registration is restored; otherwise, they vest permanently for public purposes, with sale proceeds going to the Consolidated Fund of India.

Provisions of the Amendment Bill, 2026 - Religious place protection

Designated Authority must preserve the religious character of places of worship and cannot convert or repurpose them.

Provisions of the Amendment Bill, 2026 - Legal Remedies & Processes

Aggrieved entities can apply for revision within 90 days and appeal to District Judge Court; proposed Section 14B confirms automatic cessation w/o renewal.

Provisions of the Amendment Bill, 2026 - Other reforms

Maximum imprisonment for FCRA violations is reduced from 5 years to 1 year, and central approval is mandated before state agencies launch investigations under the Act.

Scale and Regulated Sector - Active Registrations

14,449 active FCRA registrations (as of July 15, 2026), alongside 22,498 cancelled and 15,212 expired registrations.

Scale and Regulated Sector - Inflow Volume

Active associations received ₹22,963 crore in FY 2024–25 (and ₹55,741 crore total across 13,520 entities between 2019 and 2022).

Scale and Regulated Sector - Overall Share

FCRA-registered entities represent less than 1% of all operating NGOs in India.C

Comparable regimes in other Democracies

• US - Foreign Agents Registration Act (1938)

• Australia - Foreign Influence transparency Scheme Act (2018)

• UK - Foreign Influence Registration Scheme under National Security Act 2023 (July 2025)

• Canda - Foreign Influence Transparency and Accountability Act (2024)

• EU - Negotiating a directive requiring national transparency registers across all 27 member states.

Opposition of ______ on creamy layer extension to SC and ST. ________ filed counter Affidavit in Supreme court in early August

Center, Union Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment

Affidavit is a response to what

Batch petitions and public interest litigation by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, seeking income-based preference within all reserved categories.

Center’s argument for why no Creamy layer for SCs and STs

Cite historical disadvantage that goes beyond economic backwardness, and also says that inclusion or exclusion from Presidential list rests only with Parliament and not within the Judicial domain and urged dismissal under Article 32 bc there is no infringement of fundamental right.

What is “Creamy Layer”

Legal and administrative threshold that identifies socially, economically, and educationally advanced individuals within a reserved category.

Indra Sawhney Judgement (1992)

Established the concept while upholding 27% reservation for OBCs in government employment. Also confined creamy layer test to OBCs and not for SCs and STs.

Gov framing of OBC exclusion

Children of persons holding senior constitutional, Army or government positions.

Families crossing a prescribed income and wealth threshold.

Only non-creamy layer OBC candidates may access the 27% quota, and the principle has never been

applied to SCs and STs.

Sub-Categorization

Divides an existing quota into smaller shares for specific groups within the same category to secure equitable distribution.

States that practice sub-categorization

Telangana, Haryana, Punjab and Andhra pradesh practice SC subclassification, and Mizoram has sub-categorization for STs too. State does this for Eklavya Model Residential school admissions where ST quota secures minimum representation for Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups.

Economically Weaker Sections

Introduced in 2019 embodies a comparable income-based exclusion as it is only open to those outside of SC, ST and OBC reservations and within prescribed income and asset limitations.

State of Maharashtra v. Milind (2001)

Courts cannot alter the SC and ST lists

E.V Chinnaiah (2004)

Reported 2005, exclusion of creamy layer from SCs is decision that can only be taken by the Parliament.

Ashoka Kuma Thakur (2008)

Clarified that creamy layer principle does not apply to SCs and STs.

Jarnail Singh case (2018)

Excluding creamy layers from reservation benefits does not by itself alter the Presidential Lists.

Davinder Singh ruling 1 August 2024

Seven judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India, D.Y Chandrachud, recognized heterogeneity and graded backwardness within SC and ST. By 6:1 majority it overruled E.V Chinnaiah and permitted State gov to sub-classify because only inclusion and exclusion is confined to Parliament.

Nature of Backwardness for SCs

Historical disadvantage routed in untouchability, which Article 17 abolishes

Nature of Backwardness for STs

Identified by distinct culture, geographical isolation and backwardness

Nature of Backwardness for OBCs

Identified under Article 340 through social and educational backwardness, where economic criteria can serve as a proxy

Article 241 and 342

President notifies initial list and any subsequent inclusion or exclusion requires an Act of Parliament, state gov or tribunals cannot modify amend or alter these lists

Reservation in promotions for SCs and STs carries additional protection under

Article 16 (4A) inserted by 77th Constitutional Amendment 1995

Limits of judicial review and issue with petition

Petition seeks a writ of mandamus directing the executive to frame policy in a particular manner and center says that lies beyond judicial review. Judiciary can only determine whether the policy is arbitrary or unconstitutional.

Center’s claim of Evidentiary gap

Change has to b preceded by a holistic review and thorough empirical study which included socio economic data on reserved categories. This can be done though the 2027 Census which will record caste for the entire population for the first time since 1931.

Developments of anti-reservation

Reiteration comes as reservation Hatao Andolan an online campaign launched in July 2026 that has crossed 5.5 million followers on Instagram, demans replacement of caste based abtegorites with income based reservations.

Bar council of India Chairman

Manan Kumar Mishra

What did the chairman of BCI do on August 13th 2026

Directed all state bar councils not to enroll any 2026 graduate of NALSAR University of Law until further notice. After a few hours this order was modified and allowed all 2026 graduates to enroll

Why did the BCI chairman do this?

Some students protested the participation of Chief Justice Surya Kant as chief guest at the university’s convocation.

Chief Justice Surya Kant reaction

Criticized the BCI’s actions saying it interfered with the student’s right to protest. On Aug 18th he clarified that he never planned to attend.

How many students objected?

400/1400

Why did the students object?

Because of the CJ’s remarks while hearing petitions arising from student’s march to Parliament on 20 July.

Vice Chancellor and executive council decisions

The Vice Chancellor is identifying those who initiated, organized, and coordinated or mobilized the campaign. However the Council’s unanimous view is that the vast majority of the batch was innocent and that no student should suffer without fault.

Advocates act, 1961 and the creation of BCI

The act establishes the State Bar councils under section 3 and BCI under section 4

BCI

It is a statutory Body created by the Parliament under the Advocates Act 1961 to regulate and represent the Indian bar, and it also protects the rights and interests of advocates through welfare funds and schemes.

Section 24

Lays down qualifications for admission to a State roll

Section 24A

Lists disqualifications, including convictions for an offence involving moral turpitude, conviction under the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955, Protection of Civil Rights Act, and dismissal from government service on specific grounds.

Section 25 and 26

Govern the authority and procedure for admission

Section 26A

Empowers a state bar council to remove a name from its role

Indian Council of Legal Aid and Advice vs. Bar Council of India

Decided on 17 Jan 1995 the supreme court examined a BCI rule barring persons above 45 from enrollment. Held that enrolment lies within the exclusive domain of the State Bar Councils, rule was struck dow as ultra vires the Advocates Act and violative of Article 14.

Section 7(1)(b) and (g)

(b) covers standard professional conduct and etiquette, and (g) covers general supervision and control over State Bar Councils.

Section 7(1)(h) and (i)

(h) covers promotion of legal education and its standards (i) covers recognition and inspection of universities whose law degrees qualify for enrolment.

Section 49

Empowers the council to frame rules on profession conduct, standards of legal education and the conditions subject to which and advocate may practice.

Section 48B

Allows council in exercise of general supervision and control to issue directions necessary for proper and efficient discharge or a State Bar Council’s functions.

Rule 15

Places general control over the Council’s affairs with the Chairman.

Rule 18

Permits the chairman to pass interim orders in revisional and other supervisory matters

Article 124(2)

Chief Justice of India is appointed by the President under this article

Requirements for CJI

• Citizen of India

• Served as HC judge for 5 years

• Practiced as an advocate of HC for ten years or be a distinguished jurist in the President’s opinion.

• No min age and retires at 65

Master of Roster (CJI) and their role

• Administering the oath to the President

• Being consulted with Supreme court appointments

• Supreme court and High Court

• Appointing ad hoc judges under Article 127

• Shifting the seat of the Supreme Court from Delhi with the President’s approval

• Appointing an arbitrator in financial dispute between the Center and the States.

Removal of CJI

Order of the President after an address by each House of Parliament supported by a special majority (total membership of the House and a majority of not less than two-thirds of members present and voting).

Article 124(4)

Removal confined to proved misbehaviour and incapacity

Supreme Court ruling 2019

Office of the CJI falls within the RTI act of 2005