मदरास हाई कोर्ट ने ज़ेन ट्रस्ट को एफसीआरए पंजीकरण से इनकार किया, धर्म का वर्गीकरण स्पष्ट किया

“Hinduism Is Inclusive, Abrahamic Religions Inherently Exclusive”: Madras High Court While Upholding Denial Of FCRA Registration To Zen Trust

Upasana Sajeev

7 Oct 2026 2:37 PM IST

The Madras High Court recently upheld the rejection of an application filed by a charitable trust seeking registration under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 (FCRA), holding that the trust had failed to correctly disclose its religious character. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 485]

A Division Bench comprising Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice MD Sumathi observed that the trust itself claimed to subscribe to Zen Buddhist philosophy and that Zen Buddhism is a variant of the Mahayana Buddhist school.

It held that the trust was therefore required to correctly identify itself as a religious organisation while seeking FCRA registration.

The Court noted that Form FC-3A under the FCRA Rules requires an applicant to disclose the nature of its organisation, including whether it is religious, cultural, economic, educational or social. If it is a religious organisation, the applicant must also indicate whether it falls under the Hindu, Sikh, Muslim, Christian, Buddhist or “others” category.

While examining the nature of the trust, the Court also observed that “unlike Hinduism which is inclusive, the Abrahamic religions are inherently exclusive.”

The Court was considering the trust's claim that its activities were not religious in nature.

“Unlike Hinduism which is inclusive, the Abrahamic religions are inherently exclusive. The devout Jews, Christians and Muslims believe that theirs is the one true and complete revelation because that is what their Holy books say of themselves,” the Court observed.

The Court made the observation after noting that the person behind the appellant organisation was an ordained Christian priest and that the trust's meditation centre prominently displayed a Christian cross alongside a Buddha statue.

The Court was hearing an appeal filed by Kanzeon Public Charitable Trust, which runs a Montessori School and a Zen Meditation Centre at Kodaikanal, against the rejection of its application for FCRA registration by the Deputy Director (FCRA), Ministry of Home Affairs.

Distinction Between Religious, Cultural & Educational Organisations

The Court stressed that not every organisation dealing with Indian philosophical or spiritual traditions can automatically be classified as a religious organisation. It observed,

"An organisation primarily engaged in the systematic teaching of Vedanta, the Bhagavad Gita, the Upanishads, Yoga and allied Indian Knowledge Systems through structured classes, residential courses, publications, research and preservation of manuscripts cannot to be classified as religious institutions."

Indian Knowledge Systems would fall under the category of education or culture, it clarified.

No Right To Foreign Contribution, At Best A Privilege

The Court also cautioned, that India is a pluralist nation unlike USA, and status quo could be disturbed if one religious group gained ascendancy.

"We are a pluralist nation. Unlike USA, we are not a melting pot but a salad bowl, a beautiful metaphor credited to Justice Ruma Pal. This status quo would be upset, if one religious group gains ascendency. In Kerala, one recently witnessed friction between the Christians and the Muslims. If foreign funds are freely allowed inside to facilitate conversion activities, the sovereignty of the nation would be imperilled. We specifically highlight the issue of conversion because radical Christian Institutions are notorious for indulging in such activities," the Court said.

It added that Section 12(4)(a)(ii) of the FCRA Act, which prescribes that an organisation making an application for FCRA should not have been prosecuted or convicted for indulging in religious conversion through inducement or force, applies to all religious organisations.

"A fundamentalist Hindu Organisation engaged in Ghar Wapsi cannot be registered under FCRA," it remarked.

FCRA Authority Has Wide Discretion

Coming to the case at hand, the court noted that even as per the admission of the trust, it was a religious organisation.

The trust argued that it had established a Zen Meditation Centre at Kodaikanal and that its activities could not be termed religious. It contended that Zen practices belonged to the Dhyana tradition of India and should not be treated as religious activities.

The authority, on the other hand, argued that the order was well reasoned. It was submitted that the trust was engaged in religious program. It was also submitted that the policy of the Government was to check the inflow of foreign funds that may be deployed for carrying out conversion and other activities which would harm the secular fabric of the country.

The Court clarified that even a religious organisation was entitled to apply for a certificate under the Act, and the only requirement was with respect to proper disclosure.

“The appellant trust claims to subscribe to Zen Buddhist philosophy... The authority rightly states that Zen Buddhism is a variant of Mahayana Buddhist School... Applying the same logic, every Buddhist school will come under the broad umbrella of Buddhism. Zen can be no exception. Since the appellant's application did not correctly identify its nature as religious, the application was rightly negatived,” the Court said.

“The appellant need not have been so coy. Section 12 of the FCRA bars only an unregistered religious organisation from accepting foreign contribution. An organisation having a definite religious program is entitled to apply for a certificate of registration from the central government under Sections 11 and 12 of the Act. But one has to make a clean breast of everything. One cannot keep any card up one's sleeve. This is no game of hide and seek,” it added.

Before parting, the court observed that considerable leeway and unfettered discretion should be granted to the authority while deciding matters concerning FCRA registration. The court however made it clear that if such discretion was perversely exercised or materials were not taken into consideration, the rejection order could be interfered with by the court.

“We hold that considerable leeway and unfettered discretion should be given to the authority in the matter of granting or refusing registration under Sections 11 and 12 of the FCRA, 2010. Of course, if the discretion is perversely exercised or the relevant materials are not taken into account or there is non-application of mind, the rejection order would certainly be interfered with by the writ court in exercise of the power of judicial review. Such an approach was adopted in Arsha Vidya Parampara Trust v. UOI (2025 SCC Online Mad 13781). We approve the ratio laid down therein,” the court said.

The court further remarked that since one did not have a right to receive foreign aids, the decision of the authority would not be judged on a high threshold.

In the present case, noting that the authority had not disclosed its nature correctly, the court held that the authority's order was correct and did not require interference. The appeal was thus dismissed.

Counsel for Appellant: Mr. G. Baskar

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. G. Thalaimutharasu Central Government Senior Standing Counsel

Powered by Nyaya 247 News