Teaching Bhagavad Gita does not make a Trust 'religious'; not ground to deny FCRA registration: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court recently held that the Bhagavad Gita cannot be treated as a religious text for the purposes of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA) and hence, FCRA registration cannot be denied to a Trust on the ground that it was involved in teaching Gita and Yoga [Arsha Vidya Parampara Trust v. The Union of India & Anr.]

Hence, it set aside the Union Home Ministry’s decision rejecting FCRA registration to Arsha Vidya Parampara Trust after finding that the rejection order was based on insufficient reasoning and procedural lapses.

Justice GR Swaminathan directed the Ministry to reconsider the application submitted by the charitable trust focused on Vedanta teachings.

Arsha Vidya Parampara Trust, set up in 2017, teaches Vedanta, Sanskrit and Yoga, and also works to preserve ancient manuscripts.

The Trust applied for FCRA registration in 2021 but the request stayed pending for years. The Home Ministry sought clarifications in 2024 and 2025, and a fresh application filed in January 2025 was eventually rejected in September 2025.

The Trust then moved the High Court challenging the decision.

A key reason the Ministry cited for rejecting the application was its view that the Trust “appears to be religious.”

The Court examined this claim in detail, drawing on past judicial observations about the Bhagavad Gita and the nature of its teachings.

It said,

"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 Ministry had argued that the Trust’s focus on teaching the Bhagavad Gita, Upanishads, Vedanta and Sanskrit made it a religious organisation.

The Court found that this reasoning fell short of what Section 11 of the FCRA requires.

The provision allows groups with cultural, educational, religious or social aims to receive foreign contributions, but only if authorities make a “definite” and well-supported finding before denying registration.

It explained this requirement, saying,

"The expression ‘definite’…is significant… In the impugned order, the second respondent had concluded that the petitioner-association “appears to be religious”. What the Section envisages is that the authority must be categorical and clear about the character of the activities of the applicant... It cannot be a tentative one.”

The Court also rejected the Ministry’s view that teaching Vedanta, Sanskrit, and Yoga made the Trust a religious institution.

It said Vedanta is a philosophical system and Yoga a universal practice for well-being and that offering such teachings alone does not make an organisation religious.

The Ministry also pointed to a ₹9-lakh contribution the Trust had received from a trustee who is an Overseas Citizen of India, saying it violated FCRA rules because prior approval had not been obtained.

The Trust acknowledged the mistake and chose to “compound” the offence under Section 41 of the Act, which allows certain violations to be settled by paying a fee.

The Court observed that once an offence has been compounded, it cannot later be treated as a ground to deny registration,

The Ministry itself completed the compounding process in August 2025, the Court noted.

“When once the offence has been compounded, the contravention can never be an adverse ground which can be cited against the applicant,” said the court.

The Court also held that the Ministry should have informed the Trust if accepting the compounding offer would negatively affect its application.

"If the authority had intended to reject the petitioner's application on the ground of contravention of the provisions of the Act, then, the authority even while giving an option of compounding should have made it clear that compounding will only shield them from prosecution and that it would amount to acceptance of guilt leading to disqualification," added the court.

An additional allegation that the Trust had transferred foreign contributions to another organisation was raised for the first time only in the final rejection order.

The Court pointed out that this issue had neither been raised in any earlier communication nor were any specifics provided.

It held that introducing a new charge at the last stage without giving the Trust an opportunity to respond violated basic principles of natural justice.

In light of these observations, the Court directed the Home Ministry’s FCRA Wing to reconsider the Trust’s application and, if it has solid evidence of any fund transfer, to issue a fresh and detailed notice.

The Ministry has been asked to complete this process within three months of receiving the order.

The petition was argued by Senior Counsel Sricharan Rangarajan and advocate Mohamed Ashick on behalf of the Trust.

The Union Home Ministry and the other respondent was represented by Additional Solicitor General of India ARL Sundaresan assisted by Deputy Solicitor General of India K Govindarajan.

[Read Order]