Bhagavad Gita Is Not Religious Text, It's Moral Science: Madras High Court Sets Aside FCRA Rejection Of Trust Teaching Gita, Yoga
While setting aside the Central Government's order refusing registration under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act 2010 to a trust engaged in the teaching of yoga, the Madras High Court recently remarked that Bhagavad Gita is not a religious book, but more about moral science. “During the course of arguments, it emanated that because the petitioner is also engaged in imparting...
While setting aside the Central Government's order refusing registration under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act 2010 to a trust engaged in the teaching of yoga, the Madras High Court recently remarked that Bhagavad Gita is not a religious book, but more about moral science.
“During the course of arguments, it emanated that because the petitioner is also engaged in imparting the message set out in Bhagavad Gita, the authority came to the conclusion that the petitioner is a religious body. Bhagavad Gita is not a religious book. It is rather a moral science..Article 51-A(f) talks about valuing and preserving the rich heritage of our composite culture. Bhagavad Gita cannot therefore be confined within a given religion. It is a part of Bharatiya civilisation,” the court said.
Justice GR Swaminathan was hearing a petition filed by Arsha Vidya Parampara trust against an order filed by the Director, FCRA Wing, Ministry of Home Affairs rejecting an application for registration under the Act.
The trust, which was established in 2017 by the disciples of Swami Dayananda Saraswati of Arsha Vidya Gurukalam Coimbatore was engaged in the teaching and training of students from across the world for spreading knowledge of Vedanta along with Sanskrit language, teaching Hatha Yoga and yoga philosophy and also digitizing and preserving ancient manuscripts.
When the matter was taken up, the Centre submitted that the order of rejection was well-reasoned. It was submitted that the trust had violated the provisions of the FCRA and was not entitled to obtain registration. It was submitted that the registration was rejected on two grounds – firstly that the trust received foreign contribution funds without prior permission and transferred funds to other organisation and secondly, that the nature of the organisation appeared to be religious.
The court noted that the first reason was not sustainable as the Ministry had already passed an order formally compounding the offence committed by the organisation. The court also noted that the foreign contribution was not of any suspect origin and was only from the author of the trust who was based in USA.
With respect to the allegation that the trust transferred funds to another organisation, the court noted that such an allegation was being brought up for the first time and the trust was never put on notice in this regard. The court noted that the authorities had not mentioned any details of the name of the organisation to which the trust had made a transfer and thus, the order suffered from the vice of vagueness.
With respect to the second ground, the court noted that as per Section 11(1) of the Act, a religious organisation could also receive a foreign contribution, after obtaining a certificate of registration from the Central Government. The court also added that as per the provision, the authority must be categorical and clear about the character of the activities of the organisation. In the present case, the court noted that the authorities had concluded that the trust's activities “appeared to be religious”, and not definitely religious as provided in the Act. The court thus opined that the authority had not met the standard set out in the provision.
“The authority could have rejected the application by forming a definite conclusion which should of course be based on materials. It cannot be a tentative one. By holding that the applicant appears to be a religious organisation, the authority had not met the standard set out in the provision,” the court observed.
The court also noted that the reason why organisation was termed religious was because it taught Bhagavad Gita. The court observed that Bhagavad Gita was not a religious book and speaks about internal and eternal trust. The court also remarked that the Gita had inspired some national leaders during the freedom struggle and under Article 51A(b) it was the duty of citizens to cherish and follow the noble ideas which inspired our national struggle for freedom.
The court also noted that the trust taught Vedanta and Yoga, which also could not be termed as religious. The court remarked that Yoga was universal and could not be viewed through the prism of religion.
In the present case, noting that there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice, the court was inclined to quash the rejection order and remit the matter back to the authorities. The court directed the authorities to issue a fresh notice, and after obtaining response, pass a fresh order. The court also asked the exercise to be completed within a period of three months.
Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Sricharan Rangarajan, Senior Counsel for Mr. Mohamed Ashick
Counsel for Respondents: Mr. A. R. L. Sundaresan, Additional Solicitor General of India assisted by Mr. K. Govindarajan, Deputy Solicitor General of India
Case Title: Arsha Vidya Parampara Trust v. The Union of India and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 494
Case No: WP(MD)No.29610 of 2025