Bhagavad Gita Is Moral Science & Part Of Bharatiya Civilisation; Not A Religious Book: Madras High Court

The Court observed that the Bhagavad Gita is not a "religious book" in the narrow sense, but rather a work of "moral science" that speaks to internal and eternal truths.

​The Bench of Justice G.R. Swaminathan held, “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. The Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the decision reported in 2007 SCC OnLine All 1301 (Shyamal Renjan Mukherjee v. Nirmal Ranjan Mukherjee) held that Bhagavad Gita may be recognised as national (Rashtriya) Dharma Shastra. It speaks about internal and eternal truth. The learned Judge noted that many a leader of our freedom struggle such as Mahatma Gandhi, Maharishi Aurobindo, Lokamanya Tilak etc., invoked Bhagavad Gita to inspire the nation to fight against the colonial rule. Article 51-A(b) of the Constitution of India states that it shall be the duty of every citizen of India to cherish and follow the noble ideals which inspired our national struggle for freedom. 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.”

Senior Advocate Sricharan Rangarajan appeared on behalf of the Petitioner, whereas Additional Solicitor General ARL Sundaresan, with Deputy Solicitor General of India K Govindarajan, appeared for the Respondents

Factual Background

The petitioner is a trust established in 2017, and the founders are the disciples of Swami Dayananda Saraswati of Arsha Vidya Gurukalam, Coimbatore. The petitioner is engaged in teaching and training students from around the world, for spreading knowledge of Vedanta along with the Sanskrit language, teaching Hatha Yoga and yoga philosophy and also digitizing and preserving ancient manuscripts.

The petitioner applied to the Director, FCRA, Ministry of Home Affairs (‘second respondent’), for registration under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010. The application was not processed for three years, then, in October 2024, certain queries were raised. There was an exchange of correspondence between the parties. The petitioner submitted a fresh application in Form FC-3A in January, 2025. However, the application seeking a grant of registration was rejected vide impugned order by the second respondent. Assailing the same, the writ petition was filed.

Contention of the parties

The Respondents submitted that, having contravened the provisions of the FCRA, the Petitioner is not entitled to obtain registration, and the registration under FCRA is not a matter of right. It was highlighted that several NGOs are receiving foreign funds, and there is an issue related to national security.

Observations of the Court

The Court analysed two grounds for rejection in the impugned order, i.e. a) The petitioner had received foreign contribution funds without prior permission, and there has been a transfer of FC fund as a donation to another organization, b) The nature of the petitioner-organisation appears to be religious.

For the first issue, the Court said, “The authorities are expected to behave in a fair manner. It is an elementary principle of good governance. Even in criminal law, as soon as an accused is arrested, the police administer what is known as “Miranda warning”. If confession is taken without giving such a warning, the confession is inadmissible. 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 under Section 12(4)(a)(vii) of the Act. The authority had not done so in this case. The writ petitioner had acted with all bonafides.”

For the second ground, the Court observed that the authority must be categorical and clear about the character of the activities of the Applicant, which is implied by the expression “definite”. 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, it added.

“What applies to Bhagavad Gita would apply to Vedanta also. It represents the pure philosophy evolved by our ancestors. As regards Yoga, it would be atrocious to view it through the prism of religion. It is something universal. An American Court (Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, State of California, Super Ct.No. 37-2013-00035910-CU-MC-CTL (Stephen Sedlock et al v. Timothy Baird) observed that the practice of yoga is an entirely secular experience undertaken for reasons such as increasing physical flexibility, decreasing pain and reducing stress. It can also be spiritual for others. Spirituality and religion are not interchangeable terms. The Allahabad High Court in the decision reported in 2014 SCC OnLine All 15395 (Indian Academy of Naturopathy and Yoga v. State of UP) had virtually authored a thesis on Yoga. It observed that Yoga regulates different facets of life apart from helping to maintain a healthy life and mind,”, the Court observed.

Conclusion

The Court set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter to the second respondent to take into account all relevant materials. Accordingly, allowed the writ petition.

Cause Title: Arsha Vidya Parampara Trust v. The Union of India and Anr. [WP(MD) No. 29610 of 2025]

Appearances:

Petitioner: Senior Advocate Sricharan Rangarajan with Advocate Mohamed Ashick

Respondents: Additional Solicitor General ARL Sundaresan with Deputy Solicitor General of India K Govindarajan.

Click here to read/download the order