The Madras High Court has described Abrahamic religions as “inherently exclusive” and referred to “radical Christian Institutions” as notorious for conversion, while upholding the Union government’s refusal to register a Zen meditation trust, founded by a Christian priest, to receive foreign donations. The Bench said it did not accuse the trust of any conversion agenda. It ruled that the trust failed to disclose that it is a religious organisation. The judgment was pronounced on 6 October 2026.
Justices G.R. Swaminathan and M.D. Sumathi, sitting as a Division Bench at the court’s Madurai Bench in Tamil Nadu, dismissed the appeal of the Kanzeon Public Charitable Trust without costs. The trust operates a Montessori school and a Zen meditation centre in Kodaikanal, in Dindigul district. Justice Swaminathan wrote the judgment.
Under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010, known as FCRA, Indian organisations need registration from the Home Ministry before accepting money from abroad. The trust, founded in 2021 and already registered as a charity under India’s income tax law, applied on 18 June 2025. The Ministry rejected the application on 19 November 2025.
The trust’s counsel, G. Baskar, argued that the centre’s activities were not religious. He said Zen meditation belongs to the Dhyana (meditation) tradition. Central Government Senior Standing Counsel G. Thalaimutharasu said the trust ran religious programmes. He added that government policy seeks to check foreign funds that may be used for conversion and other activities that could harm the country’s secular fabric.
The judges noted that the application form, Form FC-3A, requires applicants to state whether they are religious, cultural, economic, educational or social organisations. The judges agreed with the authority that Zen Buddhism is a variant of the Mahayana school of Buddhism, so the trust should have identified itself as religious. “The appellant need not have been so coy,” the judgment said. “One cannot keep any card up one’s sleeve. This is no game of hide and seek.” The court said religious organisations may apply for registration, but must disclose their nature honestly.
The judgment records that the Bench first wondered why a person on the Zen path should be denied registration. At that stage, it said, the Union’s counsel pointed out that the trust’s founder and “moving spirit”, Rev. Fr. Ama Samy SJ, is an ordained Christian priest. SJ denotes the Jesuit order.
The judges then observed that Christianity is a messianic religion whose mission is to bring everyone within the fold of Jesus Christ. Citing the saying that “a leopard will not change its spots”, they wrote: “Unlike Hinduism which is inclusive, the Abrahamic religions are inherently exclusive.” Abrahamic religions are Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The judges added that devout Jews, Christians and Muslims believe theirs is the one true and complete revelation. They recorded that a picture on the trust’s website showed a Christian cross above a Buddha statue in the meditation centre. They said it was not for the court to doubt whether the trust’s claim to Zen Buddhist philosophy was genuine, but noted that “a strong argument” is being made that messianic religions appropriate local motifs so that the ground is prepared for “eventual take over”. It was not within the court’s province, they said, to engage in such debates.
The judges observed that Zen philosophy is of Chinese origin and said organisations like the trust cannot “therefore” claim any right to be registered under FCRA. They cited a 2023 Supreme Court ruling that nobody has a vested or absolute right to accept foreign donations. Such funding, they said, “can at best be a privilege”. They gave the registering authority “considerable leeway and unfettered discretion”, though courts may interfere if the authority acts perversely or ignores relevant material.
On conversion, the court said unrestricted foreign funds for it could imperil the nation’s sovereignty. It described India as a pluralist “salad bowl” rather than a melting pot, a metaphor it credited to former Supreme Court judge Ruma Pal. It pointed to recent friction between Christians and Muslims in Kerala. The judges said they highlighted conversion “because radical Christian Institutions are notorious for indulging in such activities”. They added that they did not accuse the trust of any such agenda.
Rev. Vijayesh Lal, General Secretary of the Evangelical Fellowship of India, the umbrella body for evangelical Christians in India, told Christian Today that the remark troubled him. “The concern for me is not that religions differ in their truth claims. They do. The problem is when those differences, or the Christian identity of a priest, appear to become a basis for suspicion in the Court’s reasoning. The Court’s remark that ‘radical Christian Institutions are notorious’ for conversion is especially troubling when it makes no such finding against the appellant itself. This case could have been decided simply on whether the Trust correctly disclosed its religious character.”
The judges said Section 12(4)(a)(ii) of the Act, on conversion, applies to all religious organisations. LiveLaw reported that it covers organisations that have been prosecuted or convicted for conversion through inducement or force. “A fundamentalist Hindu Organisation engaged in Ghar Wapsi cannot be registered under FCRA,” the judges said. Ghar Wapsi, meaning “homecoming”, refers to campaigns by Hindu groups to bring converts back into Hinduism. In summing up, they held that religious organisations whose activities do not affect the nation’s secular fabric and social amity are entitled to registration, but that organisations engaged in converting people of one religious faith to another shall be denied it.
The judgment also drew a line between religious bodies and teachers of what it called Indian Knowledge Systems. It held that organisations primarily engaged in the systematic teaching of Vedanta, the Bhagavad Gita, the Upanishads and Yoga should be classed as educational or cultural, not religious. Organisations whose programmes concern worship and rituals, it said, fall under the religious category.
The judges approved the ratio of an earlier ruling, Arsha Vidya Parampara Trust v. Union of India, on which the trust’s counsel had relied. In that December 2025 case, Justice Swaminathan, sitting alone, set aside the Home Ministry’s rejection of registration for a Coimbatore trust that teaches the Bhagavad Gita, Vedanta and Yoga, and sent the application back for fresh consideration. He held that the Gita is not a religious book but a moral science.
Lal objected to the way the Kanzeon judgment treats different traditions. “I am deeply concerned by the civilisational distinction the judgment appears to draw. It says organisations teaching Vedanta, the Bhagavad Gita, the Upanishads and Yoga should be treated as educational or cultural ‘Indian Knowledge Systems’ rather than religious institutions; it then stresses the Chinese origin of Zen, while elsewhere viewing the Christian identity of the priest through the prism of conversion. The structure of this reasoning risks privileging one religious-philosophical heritage as ‘Indian’ while casting others as foreign or suspect. Hindu heritage is an important part of India’s heritage, but it is not synonymous with Indian culture itself. Christianity has been part of Indian society for centuries and cannot be treated as an alien presence. Under a secular law, the question should be what an organisation actually does, not whether its tradition fits a preferred idea of what is ‘Indian’.”
Justice Swaminathan enrolled as an advocate in 1991 and served as Assistant Solicitor General at the Madurai Bench in 2014. He was appointed an additional judge of the High Court in 2017 and made permanent in 2019. His career has been marked by allegations of ideological bias.
In December 2025, 107 Opposition MPs submitted a notice to the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, India’s lower house of Parliament, seeking his removal. They alleged that he showed ideological bias, favour towards a community and undue favour to a senior advocate. Former High Court judge K. Chandru alleged to Scroll that Justice Swaminathan was an active member of a right-wing student organisation in college. Some advocates told Scroll that his “Hindutva ideology” and “RSS leanings” are long known in the Madras legal community. Hindutva is a Hindu nationalist ideology, and the RSS, or Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, is a Hindu nationalist volunteer organisation. Deccan Herald reports that he has been vocal about an association with Hindu Munnani, a Hindu organisation in Tamil Nadu. Available reports do not show whether the Speaker has acted on the notice.
The judgment closed with wordplay on the founder’s name. In Tamil, “Ama” means “yes”. Because the trust had wrongly projected itself as non-religious, the court said, the authority had to tell Rev. Fr. Ama Samy “Illa Samy” (No Sir).
