Teaching Bhagavad Gita Is Not Religious Activity for FCRA Purposes: Madras HC

The Madras High Court has ruled that teaching the Bhagavad Gita does not automatically make a trust a “religious” organisation. Therefore, such activity alone cannot be a valid reason to deny registration under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA).

The Court set aside the Union Home Ministry’s decision that had rejected FCRA registration to the Arsha Vidya Parampara Trust. It found that the rejection order lacked clear reasoning and suffered from procedural flaws. The matter was heard by Justice G R Swaminathan, who directed the Ministry to reconsider the trust’s application.

The trust, established in 2017, is involved in teaching Vedanta, Sanskrit and Yoga, and also works towards preserving ancient manuscripts. It had applied for FCRA registration in 2021. After years of delay and multiple rounds of clarification sought by the Ministry, a fresh application filed in January 2025 was rejected in September 2025. This led the trust to approach the High Court.

One of the main reasons given by the Ministry for rejection was that the trust “appeared to be religious”. The Court examined this claim closely and referred to earlier judicial views on the nature of the Bhagavad Gita. It observed that the Gita is not limited to religious instruction but is a work of moral and philosophical thought that forms part of Indian civilisation. It cannot be restricted to one religion.

The Court also explained that under the FCRA, organisations with cultural, educational, religious or social objectives are allowed to receive foreign contributions. However, authorities must reach a clear and definite conclusion before denying registration. A vague observation that an organisation “appears” to be religious does not meet this legal requirement.

Further, the Court rejected the argument that teaching Vedanta, Sanskrit or Yoga makes an organisation religious in nature. It noted that Vedanta is a philosophical system and Yoga is a universal practice focused on physical and mental well-being. These activities, by themselves, do not convert a charitable trust into a religious body.

The Ministry had also raised an issue regarding a ₹9 lakh contribution received by the trust from an Overseas Citizen of India without prior approval. The trust accepted this lapse and opted to compound the offence under the law by paying the prescribed fee. The Court clarified that once an offence is compounded, it cannot later be used as a ground to deny FCRA registration. It also noted that the Ministry had completed the compounding process in August 2025.

Additionally, the Court criticised the Ministry for raising a new allegation in the final rejection order, claiming that the trust had transferred foreign funds to another organisation. This issue was never mentioned earlier, nor was the trust given an opportunity to respond. The Court held that this violated basic principles of natural justice.

In view of these findings, the Court directed the Home Ministry’s FCRA wing to reconsider the trust’s application and issue a fresh, detailed notice if it has concrete evidence of any violations. The entire process must be completed within three months.