Justice GR Swaminathan of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, on December 19, ruled that the Bhagavad Gita is “not a religious book” but a work of “moral science” rooted in Bharatiya civilisation. The judge made the observation while setting aside a Union Home Ministry order rejecting Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA) registration to the Arsha Vidya Parampara Trust, which is a public charitable trust based in Coimbatore.
Allowing the writ petition filed by the trust, Justice Swaminathan quashed the September 8, 2025 order of the Ministry of Home Affairs’ FCRA wing and remitted the matter for fresh consideration, directing the authorities to pass a reasoned order within three months.
“Bhagavad Gita is not a religious book. It is rather a moral science,” the court observed, adding that it “cannot therefore be confined within a given religion. It is a part of Bharatiya civilisation.”
The trust, established in 2017 by disciples of Swami Dayananda Saraswati of Arsha Vidya Gurukalam, Coimbatore, imparts teachings on Vedanta and Sanskrit, conducts yoga and yoga philosophy courses, and works on digitisation and preservation of ancient manuscripts. It had applied for FCRA registration in 2021, but its application was rejected on the grounds that it had received foreign contributions without prior permission and that its activities “appeared to be religious”.
The trust’s petition challenged the Union Home Ministry’s order rejecting its application for registration and sought that FCRA registration be granted. The trust argued that the alleged foreign contribution violation was a technical lapse that had already been compounded, and that its activities of teaching the Bhagavad Gita, Vedanta and Yoga were educational and cultural in nature, not religious, making the FCRA rejection arbitrary and unlawful.
Justice Swaminathan held that the first ground was unsustainable since the alleged violation relating to receipt of foreign funds had already been compounded by the trust. “When once the offence has been compounded, the contravention can never be an adverse ground which can be cited against the applicant,” the order said, noting that the funds were received from a trustee based in the United States and were not of “any suspect origin”.
The court also found a violation of principles of natural justice in the allegation that the trust had transferred foreign contribution to another organisation, pointing out that no prior notice was issued and that the impugned order did not even name the recipient organisation.
On the second ground, the court stressed that even religious organisations are entitled to seek FCRA registration under Section 11 of the Act, provided there is a “definite” conclusion about the nature of their activities. “By holding that the applicant appears to be a religious organisation, the authority had not met the standard set out in the provision,” Justice Swaminathan observed.
Section 11 of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 provides that any person or organisation having a definite cultural, economic, educational, religious or social programme can accept foreign contributions only after obtaining a certificate of registration or prior permission from the Union Government, meaning that even religious organisations are eligible for FCRA registration if they meet the statutory requirements.
Rejecting the Union’s contention that teaching the Bhagavad Gita rendered the trust religious, the court relied on constitutional provisions and judicial precedents. Referring to Articles 51A(b) and 51A(f) of the Constitution, the judge noted that citizens have a duty to cherish the ideals that inspired the freedom struggle and preserve India’s composite cultural heritage.
“What applies to the Bhagavad Gita would apply to Vedanta. It represents the pure philosophy evolved by our ancestors,” the court said.
Article 51A(b) of the Constitution of India lays down the fundamental duty of every citizen to cherish and follow the noble ideals that inspired India’s freedom struggle, while Article 51A(f) mandates citizens to value and preserve the rich heritage of India’s composite culture.
On yoga, the court made strong observations, stating, “As regards Yoga, it would be atrocious to view it through the prism of religion. It is something universal.” The order also cited Indian and American court rulings to underline that spirituality and religion are not interchangeable terms.
Holding that there had been a “fundamental breach of the principles of natural justice” and that the impugned decision suffered from “the vice of disproportionality”, the court set aside the rejection order and directed the FCRA authorities to issue a fresh, non-vague notice and reconsider the trust’s application afresh within three months.