The Madras High Court has upheld the Union government’s refusal to grant Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA) registration to a charitable trust operating a Zen meditation centre in Kodaikanal, holding that organisations involved in religious conversion cannot claim registration under the law.
A Division Bench comprising Justices GR Swaminathan and MD Sumathi delivered the ruling in the case involving Kanzeon Public Charitable Trust.
The trust had maintained that Zen meditation formed part of India’s traditional Dhyana practices and that its activities were not religious in nature. Government authorities, however, viewed the organisation’s activities as having a religious character.
The Court examined Section 12(4)(a)(ii) of the FCRA, which concerns organisations involved in religious conversion, and said the provision applies irrespective of the religion involved.
The Bench observed that a Hindu organisation involved in activities such as Ghar Wapsi would similarly be ineligible for FCRA registration. It warned that unrestricted foreign funding for conversion-related activities could have implications for India’s sovereignty and social balance.
The judgment also discussed India’s religious diversity, describing the country as a plural society whose character could be affected if one religious community were to acquire disproportionate influence.
At the centre of the dispute was the background of the trust’s founder, Rev. Fr. Ama Samy SJ, an ordained Christian priest. The Court considered this fact while assessing the nature and character of the organisation’s activities.
The Bench drew a distinction between Hindu philosophical and cultural traditions and what it described as the more exclusive theological claims associated with Abrahamic faiths. The judgment said that Judaism, Christianity and Islam traditionally regard their respective revelations as uniquely authoritative.
The Court also referred to arguments concerning the use of indigenous cultural practices and symbols by missionary traditions, while stressing that it was not the Court’s role to resolve broader theological or ideological disputes.
On the specific question before it, the Bench concluded that Zen Buddhism is associated with the Mahayana Buddhist tradition. It therefore held that the trust should have disclosed the religious character of its activities when seeking FCRA approval.
The judges rejected the suggestion that the trust could present itself solely as a non-religious organisation while seeking foreign funding.
The Court further emphasised that receiving foreign contributions is not an absolute legal entitlement. Under the FCRA framework, such funding is subject to statutory conditions and cannot be claimed as a vested right.
At the same time, the judgment drew a distinction between religious organisations and institutions engaged in the study or promotion of Indian knowledge traditions. Bodies teaching subjects such as Vedanta, the Bhagavad Gita, the Upanishads, Yoga and related disciplines could ordinarily fall within the educational or cultural sphere rather than being treated automatically as religious organisations, the Bench said.
The Court ultimately found no grounds to interfere with the government’s decision to deny FCRA registration to the trust.
In a final wordplay referring to the founder’s name, the Bench remarked that the authority was effectively required to say “Illa Samy” — meaning “No, Sir” — to Rev. Fr. Ama Samy.