The Madras High Court ruled that the Bhagavad Gita cannot be treated as a religious text under the FCRA, setting aside the Union Home Ministry’s denial of registration to a trust teaching Vedanta, Yoga, and Indian philosophy.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
CHENNAI: In a ruling on the interpretation of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 (FCRA), the Madras High Court has held that the Bhagavad Gita cannot be treated as a religious text for FCRA, and therefore, FCRA registration cannot be denied solely on the ground that an organisation teaches the Gita, Vedanta, or Yoga.
The Court set aside the Union Home Ministry’s (MHA) decision rejecting FCRA registration to Arsha Vidya Parampara Trust, citing insufficient reasoning, procedural lapses, and violation of principles of natural justice.
The judgment was delivered by Justice G.R. Swaminathan in Arsha Vidya Parampara Trust v. Union of India & Anr.
Background of the Case
Arsha Vidya Parampara Trust, established in 2017, is a charitable trust engaged in:
- Teaching Vedanta, Sanskrit, and Yoga
- Preservation of ancient manuscripts
- Dissemination of traditional Indian philosophical knowledge
The Trust applied for FCRA registration in 2021, but the application remained pending for several years. The Ministry of Home Affairs sought clarifications in 2024 and 2025. A fresh application filed in January 2025 was ultimately rejected in September 2025, prompting the Trust to approach the Madras High Court.
Court’s Observations
The Home Ministry rejected the application primarily because:
- The Trust “appears to be religious” in nature
- It teaches the Bhagavad Gita, Upanishads, Vedanta, Sanskrit, and Yoga
- The Trust had earlier received a ₹9 lakh contribution from an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) without prior FCRA approval
- An allegation (raised at the final stage) that the Trust transferred foreign funds to another organisation
Rejecting the Ministry’s approach, the High Court relied on well-established judicial interpretations of the Bhagavad Gita, holding:
“Bhagavad Gita is not a religious book. It is rather a moral science… Bhagavad Gita cannot therefore be confined within a given religion. It is a part of Bharatiya civilisation.”
The Court emphasised that teaching the Gita does not automatically render an organisation religious, especially under a secular statutory framework like the FCRA.
The Court further clarified that:
- Vedanta is a philosophical system
- Yoga is a universal practice for physical, mental, and spiritual well-being
- Sanskrit is a classical language with cultural and academic significance
It held that offering education in these disciplines alone does not make an organisation “religious” under the FCRA.
ALSO READ: “Propaganda”: Gujarat HC Dismisses PIL Against Teaching Bhagavad Gita in Schools
Interpreting Section 11 of the FCRA, the Court highlighted that:
- Organisations with cultural, educational, religious, or social objectives are eligible for foreign contributions
- Denial of registration requires a clear, categorical, and well-supported finding
Criticising the Ministry’s language, the Court noted:
“The expression ‘definite’ is significant… The conclusion that the petitioner ‘appears to be religious’ is only tentative. The statute requires certainty, not conjecture.”
Regarding the ₹9 lakh foreign contribution from an OCI, the Trust admitted the lapse and opted to compound the offence under Section 41 of the FCRA. The Ministry accepted the compounding in August 2025.
The Court ruled:
“When once the offence has been compounded, the contravention can never be an adverse ground which can be cited against the applicant.”
It further held that the Ministry should have clearly warned the Trust if compounding would adversely affect its FCRA application.
The Court also took serious note of the Ministry’s allegation—raised for the first time in the final rejection order—that the Trust had transferred foreign contributions to another entity.
It held that:
- No prior notice or details were provided
- The Trust was denied an opportunity to respond
- Such action violates principles of natural justice
High Court’s Directions
In light of these findings, the Madras High Court:
- Set aside the rejection order
- Directed the FCRA Wing of the Home Ministry to reconsider the Trust’s application
- Ordered that if any allegations exist, the Ministry must issue a fresh, detailed show-cause notice
- Mandated completion of the process within three months of receiving the judgment
Case Title:
Arsha Vidya Parampara Trust v. The Union of India & Anr
WP(MD)No.29610 of 2025
READ ORDER
