Organisations Engaged In Religious Conversion Shall Be Denied Registration Under FCRA: Madras HC

While taking a very strong and sensible stand on religious conversions, the Madras High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Kanzeon v. Union of India in CMA(MD) No. 1057 of 2026 CNR:{HCMD010734672026} that was initially reserved on 01.10.2026 and then finally pronounced on 06.10.2026 has been most vocal and forthright to mince absolutely just no words to hold in no uncertain terms that organisations engaged in religious conversion shall be denied registration under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA).

We thus see that the Madras High Court deemed it absolutely right to upheld the Centre’s decision to deny FCRA registration to a Zen meditation centre in Kodaikanal run by a Christian priest. It must be noted that a Division Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice GR Swaminathan and Hon’ble Mr Justice MD Sumathi made the key observations while upholding the decision of the Central Government to deny FCRA registration to Kanzeon Public Charitable Trust which runs a Zen meditation centre in Kodaikanal.

Madras High Court On FCRA Registration And Religious Conversion

It also merits noting that the Madras High Court said that Section 12(4)(a)(ii) of the FCRA which deals with religious conversion applies across religions. It was also unequivocally held by the Court that if foreign funds were freely permitted to facilitate religious conversions, “the sovereignty of the nation would be imperilled”. Absolutely right!

Also Read: NRI Property Dispute in India: Supreme Court Restores FIR in Bengaluru Property Case

Question Before The Madras High Court

At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by Hon’ble Mr Justice GR Swaminathan for a Division Bench of the Madras High Court comprising of himself and Hon’ble Mr Justice MD Sumathi sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 stipulating that, “Does one have the right to obtain a certificate of registration from the Central Government under Section 11 of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 and if so, under what circumstances?”

Facts Of Kanzeon v. Union Of India

To put things in perspective, the Division Bench envisages in para 2 observing that, “The appellant, a trust founded in the year 2021 and already registered under Section 12AB and 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961, sought certificate of registration under the provisions of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010. The appellant’s application dated 18.06.2025 was rejected vide order dated 19.11.2025. Assailing the same, this civil miscellaneous appeal came to be filed.”

Whether FCRA Appeal Lies Before A Single Judge Or Division Bench

As it turned out, the Division Bench enunciates in para 3 stating that, “The Registry initially raised a doubt if this appeal has to be heard by a Single Judge Bench or by a Division Bench. Any appeal against an order of rejection passed under Section 12(2) of the Act is filed under Section 31(2) of the Act. It states that the person aggrieved by such rejection order may prefer an appeal to the High Court. Section 31(3) of the Act reads as follows:

“Every appeal preferred under this section shall be deemed to be an appeal from an original decree and the provisions of Order XLI of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), shall, as far as may be, apply thereto as they apply to an appeal from an original decree.”

Rule 2(5) Of The Rules Of The High Court, Madras, Appellate Side, 1965

Rule 2(5) of the Rules of the High Court, Madras, Appellate Side, 1965 reads as follows:

“2.The following matters shall be heard and determined by a Bench of two Judges –

(5) Every appeal –

(a) from a decree or order of a Civil Court;

(b) under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent;

(c) from a decree where the value of the subject-matter of the Appeal is Rs. 25, 00, 000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs) or upwards;

(d) under Section 37 of the Tamil General Sales Tax Act, 1959;

(e) For an admission of an appeal in forma pauperis except that specified in Rule 2 (2) (a);

(f) of an interlocutory character in appeals and other matters pending in the Court except an application posted before the Registrar under Order II of these rules;

(g) for the admission of a proceeding falling under this rule presented after the expiry of the period allowed by the law.]”

Why FCRA Appeals Go Before A Division Bench

In view of Section 31(3) of the Act, the rejection order must be treated as a civil court’s decree. Hence, it will fall within the scope of Rule 2(5)(a) of the Appellate Side Rules. Rule 2(5)(a) must be read along with Rule 2(5)(c). If the value of the subject matter of the appeal is less than Rs.25.00 lakhs, the appeal has to be listed before the Single Judge Bench.

Rule 2(5) does not talk about those cases that are incapable of monetary valuation. The order impugned in this appeal is not capable of valuation. The question regarding listing may have to be determined by taking into account the overall scheme set out in the Appellate Side Rules.

It is seen that appeals/applications/revision petitions/references under various special statutes are listed before the Division Bench. FCRA is a special statute. It would, therefore, be in the fitness of things and in consonance with the overall statutory scheme that an appeal under Section 31(2) of the FCRA, 2010 is also heard by a Division Bench.

It is relevant to note that in the Chartered High Court of Calcutta also such appeals are listed only before the Division Bench.

Most significantly, the Division Bench encapsulates in para 6 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment, postulating precisely that:

“We carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the materials on record. The very word “Zen” has something catchy about it. There are several cult books on this theme. Many a celebrity has endorsed Zen. Anyone in pursuit of ultimate wisdom and enlightenment cannot ignore Zen. We wondered as to why a person treading the Zen path should be denied FCRA registration. At this stage, the learned standing counsel pointed out that the author of the trust and the moving spirit behind the appellant organisation is an ordained Christian priest. He is addressed as “Rev.Fr.Ama Samy SJ”. One cannot forget the fact that Christianity is a messianic religion. Their theological and religious mission is to bring everyone within the fold of Jesus Christ. There is a saying “a leopard will not change its spots”. 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. With this nagging doubt, we stepped into the appellant’s website. We came across the following motif that has been prominently installed in the meditation centre.”

FCRA Registration And The Nature Of The Organisation

It is worth noting that the Division Bench, while citing the relevant case law, notes in para 7 that:

“We will now stop for a moment and see what the rules say regarding the procedure for registration. Rule 9 of FCR Rules, 2011 states that the application must be in Form FC-3A. Form FC-3A requires the applicant to disclose the nature of the organisation. It must be indicated under which of the following heads, they can be categorised:

If the applicant is a religious person/association, it must be mentioned under which of the following classification they would fall:

Zen Buddhist Philosophy And FCRA Classification

The appellant trust claims to subscribe to Zen Buddhist philosophy. It is not for us to doubt if the said claim is genuine or spurious. A strong argument is being made that the native and local motifs are appropriated by the messianic religions so that the ground is prepared for eventual take over. It is not within our province to engage in such debates. They have to be waged elsewhere.

But on the own showing of the appellant, they are a religious organisation. The reason set out in the impugned order is eminently sustainable. The authority rightly states that Zen Buddhism is a variant of Mahayana Buddhist School.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner, HR&CE v. Shirur Mutt (1954) 1 SCC 412, observed that each one of the sects or the sub-sects of the Hindu religion are to be called as religious denominations. 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.

Religious Organisations And Section 12 Of The FCRA

Do also note, the Division Bench then notes in para 8 that:

“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.”

The observation highlights an important aspect of the FCRA registration process: an applicant must clearly and accurately disclose the nature and character of its activities. The regulatory framework requires transparency regarding whether an organisation is religious, cultural, educational, economic or social.

Religious Organisation Versus Cultural And Educational Entity

Do further note, the Division Bench then notes in para 9 that:

“It is necessary to make a clear distinction between a religious organisation and a cultural or educational entity. 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 be classified as religious institutions. Indian Knowledge Systems would fall under the category of education or culture.

The National Educational Policy, 2020 expressly provides for including IKS within the educational curriculum and specifically refers to philosophy and yoga among the fields in which such knowledge is to be taught. When NEP itself recognises these disciplines as legitimate fields of study, the foreign contribution framework should not classify such organisations teaching the same subjects as religious.

Such misclassification can have serious economic and funding consequences. The regulatory framework governing foreign contribution should operate in tandem with the New Educational Policy, 2020.

Indians are now spread all over the world. The immortal novelist Raja Rao remarked that India is more an idea and not a mere territory. Indians living abroad would want to support certain cultural activities taking place within India. FCRA should not come as an obstacle.

Let us take the example of Jews. The Jews were driven out of their homeland. They settled all over the world. They acted as effective pressure groups in each country where they were. The Bharatiya diaspora can play a similar role. Persons and organisations engaged in dissemination of Indian Knowledge Systems would thus stand on a different footing.”

Indian Knowledge Systems As Education And Culture

The Division Bench draws a distinction between organisations that are primarily religious and those engaged in structured educational or cultural activities. The activities referred to include:

• Systematic teaching of Vedanta.
• Teaching of the Bhagavad Gita.
• Study of the Upanishads.
• Teaching and study of Yoga.
• Research into Indian Knowledge Systems.
• Publication of educational and cultural material.
• Preservation of manuscripts.
• Residential educational courses.

According to the observation, such activities may fall within the sphere of education or culture rather than being treated automatically as religious activities.

Zen Philosophy, Foreign Contribution And National Interest

Most forthrightly, the Division Bench points out in para 10 that:

“Zen philosophy is of Chinese origin. Organisations like the appellant trust cannot therefore claim any right to be registered under FCRA. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Noel Harper v. UOI (2023) 3 SCC 544 made it clear that there is no vested right, much less an absolute right to accept foreign donation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also hinted that there is a possibility of national polity being influenced by foreign contribution. They may destabilise the social order within the country.

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. We hasten to clarify that we do not accuse the appellant of having any such agenda.

Section 12(4)(a)(ii) specifically refers to conversion from one religious faith to another. This provision applies to all religious organisations. A fundamentalist Hindu Organisation engaged in Ghar Wapsi cannot be registered under FCRA.

The statutory regime which was put in place during UPA rule (2010) is intended to subserve secular objects.”

Foreign Contribution And The FCRA Regulatory Framework

The observations emphasise that acceptance of foreign contribution is subject to the statutory framework governing registration and regulation under the FCRA. The Division Bench refers to the Supreme Court decision in Noel Harper v. UOI (2023) 3 SCC 544 in this context.

The judgment also connects the regulatory framework with concerns relating to:

• Foreign contribution and national interest.
• Potential influence on national polity.
• Social harmony and public order.
• Religious conversion.
• The sovereignty of the nation.
• The statutory restrictions applicable to religious organisations.

Foreign Contribution, Democratic Order And Accountability

It cannot be just glossed over that the Division Bench then also points out in para 11 that:

“Prof (Dr) P.Ishwara Bhat, a distinguished academic in his illuminating article “Balancing transnational charity with democratic order, security, social harmony and accountability: a critical appraisal of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010” wrote the following:

Globalization of Charity and the FCRA

“Globalization of charity is not a new phenomenon, but is an indispensable feature of a caring and cooperating international community, which includes individuals, organizations and states. But the values of democracy, social harmony and expressional freedom are far more superior and essential for survival of the constitutional polity. Hence, charity, in spite of its high moral ground should not have competence to subvert these values, but instead, should be complementary to them.

The FCRA 2010 and its predecessor have reflected the instrumental role of transnational charity and supremacy of the democratic values. Indoctrination at the international level is encroachment of or intervention with intellectual sovereignty of the nation. But with the demise of cold war and emergence of globalization, the fear of indoctrination remains, as a paper tiger.

However, being fed by FC, led by false fear and armed with borrowed ideas, chances of NPVOs acting to obstruct a developmental work may not be ruled out. Similarly, direct financial support by big nations or their bodies to public men of other nations, which had toppled the existing governments and enthroned new ones in the past, may be a potential danger.

Further, transnational financial assistance to terrorism and communal disharmony threaten the health of the polity. FCRA arms the Central Government with adequate powers to deal with such contingencies. The procedural refinements and introduction of greater means of ensuring accountability of fund receivers under the new Act have added strength to support genuine charity.”

Judicial Review of FCRA Registration Decisions

It would be worthwhile to note that while citing a recent and relevant case law, the Division Bench notes in para 12 that,

“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.”

Scope of Authority Under the FCRA

Be it noted, the Division Bench notes in para 13 that,

“The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State rep.by CBI v. M.Kurian, Chief Functionary of the Cross (2001) 4 SCC 290, while construing the repealed 1976 FCRA, observed that the entire purpose behind the Act was that the recipients of foreign contribution may not act in a manner inconsistent with the values of the sovereign republic which our founding fathers have given to us.

The statutory scheme indicates the legislative intent and the purpose behind the Act and therefore, the provisions of the Act are to be construed accordingly. When the statute envisages a frank disclosure of all the details, any misrepresentation would entail rejection of the application itself.

Though the applicant is engaged in religious programs, they wrongly projected themselves as non-religious. That is why, the respondent authority had to say “Illa Samy” (No Sir) to Rev.Fr.Ama Samy (which name literally translates to “Yes”).”

FCRA Registration and Religious Organisations

Most rationally and most remarkably, the Division Bench then summed up propounding in para 14 holding explicitly that,

“Let us sum up. An application seeking FCRA registration should correctly disclose the nature of the applicant. Failure to do so will result in rejection of the application. Even if all the details are in order, the authority is still at liberty to negative the request.

The decision of the authority will not be judged on a high threshold but in the light of the parameters mentioned in para 11. This is because there is no right as such to receive foreign contribution. It can at best be a privilege.

The authority must however correctly classify the applicants. Persons and organisations engaged in upholding the civilisational heritage of India have to be classified as educational or cultural.

If the programs of the applicant pertain to worship and rituals, they will fall under the religious category. Religious organisations, whose activities would not affect the nation’s secular fabric and social amity, are entitled to obtain FCRA registration.

But organisations engaged in converting people of one religious faith to another shall be denied FCRA registration.”

Key Principles Emerging From the Judgment

Final Conclusion of the Madras High Court

Finally and resultantly, the Division Bench then concludes aptly by directing and holding in para 15 that,

“For the foregoing reasons, the order impugned in this civil miscellaneous appeal is sustained. This appeal is dismissed. No costs.”

FCRA, Religious Conversion and Foreign Contribution

All in all, the Madras High Court has made it quite abundantly clear that organizations who are engaged in religious conversion shall be denied registration under FCRA.

It has been thus made crystal clear by the Court that there has to be zero tolerance for religious conversion because it is a direct attack on the very integrity of the nation and is funded by those foreign powers who are strongly inimical to our national unity and want to divide it as was done in 1947 by any means – fair or unfair.

How can such foreign powers be allowed to have the last laugh?

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A – 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.

Important Links

• Lawyers in India
• Copyright Registration in India
• Caveat Filing in Supreme Court of India
• Mutual Consent Divorce in Delhi/NCR : WhatsApp 9650499965