Bhagavad Gita Part of Bharatiya Civilisation, Not Confined to Religion: Madras High Court

The Bhagavad Gita “is not a religious book” but a work of moral philosophy that speaks of “internal and eternal truth” and forms part of India’s civilisational heritage, the Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) has held, observing that teaching or disseminating it cannot, by itself, render an organisation religious in nature.

Justice G.R. Swaminathan made the observation while setting aside an order of the Ministry of Home Affairs rejecting the application of Arsha Vidya Parampara Trust for registration under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010, and remitted the matter to the FCRA authority for fresh consideration.

The trust, established in June 2017 by disciples of Swami Dayananda Saraswati of Arsha Vidya Gurukulam, is engaged in teaching Vedanta and Sanskrit, imparting yoga philosophy, and digitising and preserving ancient manuscripts. It had applied for FCRA registration in September 2021. The application, however, remained pending for nearly three years.

In April 2025, the FCRA Wing raised several queries, including an allegation that the trust had received foreign contribution of about Rs. 9 lakh from one of its trustees, a US national, without prior permission. The trust admitted the lapse and opted for compounding of the offence. The Ministry permitted compounding, and the trust paid Rs. 3.70 lakh. An order formally compounding the offence was passed on August 1, 2025.

Despite this, the Director, FCRA Wing, rejected the trust’s application on September 8, 2025. The rejection was based on two grounds: that the trust had received and transferred foreign contribution in contravention of the Act, and that the nature of the trust appeared to be religious.

Allowing the writ petition, the High Court held that the first ground was unsustainable. Justice Swaminathan noted that once an offence is compounded under Section 41 of the FCRA, the contravention “can never be an adverse ground” against the applicant. Court observed that the violation in the present case was purely technical, that the source of funds was not suspect, and that disqualifying the applicant on that basis would attract the vice of disproportionality.

Court also found fault with the allegation of transfer of foreign contribution. It noted that such an allegation was raised for the first time in the impugned order, without the trust being put on notice. The order did not disclose the name of the organisation to which the alleged transfer was made, nor did it specify the date or particulars of such transfer. This, the court held, amounted to a violation of the principles of natural justice and rendered the order vague.

On the second ground, court held that Section 11 of the FCRA requires the authority to reach a “definite” conclusion regarding the nature of the organisation. A finding that the applicant “appears to be religious” did not meet the statutory standard.

Dealing specifically with the reference to Bhagavad Gita, court held that it could not be treated as a religious book. Relying on earlier decisions, the court observed that the Gita has been recognised as a “Rashtriya Dharma Shastra” and that several leaders of India’s freedom struggle had invoked it to inspire the nation. Court referred to Articles 51A(b) and 51A(f) of the Constitution to state that the Bhagavad Gita forms part of India’s composite culture and heritage.

Court further observed that what applies to the Bhagavad Gita would equally apply to Vedanta, which represents pure philosophy evolved by Indian civilisation. As regards yoga, court held that it would be “atrocious” to view it through the prism of religion, noting that yoga is a universal practice and that spirituality and religion are not interchangeable terms.

The High Court also noted that the trust had been granted registration under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act after scrutiny by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which had held it to be a charitable organisation. Failure to consider this relevant material, the court held, amounted to non-application of mind.

Rejecting the Union government’s objection on maintainability, court held that the writ petition was maintainable in view of violations of natural justice and disproportionality.

Accordingly, the impugned rejection order was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Director, FCRA Wing, with a direction to issue a fresh notice, if necessary, based on relevant material, obtain the trust’s response, and pass a fresh order within three months.

Case Title: Arsha Vidya Parampara Trust vs. The Union of India

Order Date: December 19, 2025

Bench: Justice G.R. Swaminathan