Why has the RSS not registered itself? The law and history behind the persistent debate

During a lecture series in Bengaluru on November 9 last year — even at that time responding to Kharge — RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat had dismissed the controversy as a settled matter.

“RSS started in 1925. So do you expect us to register with the British government, against whom our Sarsanghchalak was fighting at that time?” Bhagwat said. He argued that Indian law does not make registration compulsory for associations of individuals and that the RSS enjoys legal recognition as a “body of individuals”. He pointed to court rulings in tax matters, the three occasions on which the organisation was banned, and repeated references to the RSS in legislatures as evidence of its legal status.

The question, however, persists because the RSS occupies a unique place in Indian public life. It is arguably the country’s largest voluntary organisation, has existed for a century, runs thousands of daily shakhas and sits at the centre of an ecosystem that includes trade unions, farmer organisations, student bodies, educational institutions and social service networks. Its political arm, the BJP, has been in power at the Centre for over a decade now and the party has governments in the majority of states in India.

Yet unlike most organisations of comparable scale, the RSS itself remains unregistered.

In a letter dated June 13, Kharge noted: “It is precisely because of this scale, influence and reach that the RSS must be held to the highest standards of transparency, accountability and constitutional compliance.”

Is registration mandatory?

No. India has no general law requiring every association of citizens to register. Societies Registration Act, Trusts Acts, Company law and Trade Union law provide legal vehicles through which organisations may choose to incorporate themselves. But registration is generally optional unless an organisation seeks rights or privileges that require a particular legal form.

This is the basis of Bhagwat’s argument.

The question of RSS’s legal status arose way back in the 1970s through two tax cases in Bombay and Patna. Tax authorities had questioned the status of RSS donations — received in the form of “guru dakshina” from workers — and sought to tax it. However, tax appellate authorities in both cases held that under the rules, “guru dakshina” was exempt. This was also later upheld by the Patna High Court in 1994. It was in these proceedings that the RSS was also recognised as a “body of individuals”.

Therefore, the controversy is not about whether the RSS is lawful. The debate is about whether an organisation of such scale and influence ought to remain outside the registration framework followed by most modern institutions.

One reason most organisations choose to register is that registration provides a clear legal identity and makes it easier to conduct day-to-day operations. A registered society, trust, company or union can own property, open bank accounts, enter into contracts, employ staff, receive grants and donations, and maintain assets in its own name.

Registration also creates a defined governance structure and continuity beyond individual office-bearers. By contrast, an unregistered association generally lacks a separate legal personality; property is often held through trustees or office-bearers, contracts are executed through individuals, and legal proceedings typically have to be brought by or against representatives rather than the organisation itself. Registration therefore offers administrative convenience, legal certainty and institutional continuity, which is why it has become the preferred model for most large organisations, especially those that manage substantial assets, raise funds, run institutions or engage extensively with the state and the financial system.

A movement before it was an organisation

To understand why the RSS remains unregistered, one must go back to its origins.

Founded by K B Hedgewar in 1925, the RSS was conceived less as a conventional association and more as a social movement focused on character-building and social organisation. Unlike political parties, trade unions or professional associations, it did not rely on membership forms, subscription fees or formal enrolment.

Participation rather than paperwork became the organising principle. This philosophy remains visible even today. There is no membership card. There is no publicly verifiable national membership register. One becomes a swayamsevak through participation in the organisation’s activities, particularly the daily shakha.

RSS chronicler Ratan Sharda argues that critics often misunderstand the organisation by judging it through the lens of conventional institutions.

“RSS is not a classical organisation. It is a man-to-man organisation engaged in character building. It functions through bonds fostered via regular contact and communication. Anyone can start a shakha and then close it down,” he told The Indian Express.

Sharda also said that RSS is a decentralised organization. “Shakhas run independently, raising their own resources. There is no central control. So there cannot be any centralised record keeping,” he said.

Worry over state action

Yet organisational philosophy alone does not explain everything. Research by scholars Walter Andersen and Shridhar Damle suggests that concerns about state action have long shaped RSS thinking.

In their 2019 book The Brotherhood in Saffron, they note that “from its inception, the RSS adopted a cautious non-confrontational approach toward political authority to reduce the chances of government restrictions”.

That caution was not misplaced. The RSS was banned after Mahatma Gandhi’s assassination in 1948, during the Emergency in 1975 and again following the demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1992.

This, scholars argue, forced the RSS to think of innovative ways to remain operational. Among them was maintaining as little paperwork as possible, keeping core operations informal and spawning a multitude of associate organisations for sector-specific formal engagements.

An RSS functionary, speaking on condition of anonymity, acknowledged that fear of state repression did influence organisational choices.

“RSS was born in adversity. So, one cannot fault the leaders of the time for being cautious. During the Emergency, even informal member lists were used to arrest workers,” he said. “Today, given the RSS structure, you will not be able to raid our office because on paper RSS has no office. You can’t arrest our members because there are none documented.”

Historians of the organisation have recognised this reality: decentralisation and informality have made the RSS resilient.

“The founders of the RSS were of the opinion that centralised asset creation, for which registration is necessary, might end up creating issues of ownership, maintenance and control within the organisation. That would divert the attention from the key goal of organising the society. So, every functional unit of the RSS was made responsible for its own operations. The idea was to make RSS assets belong to the society as it is made from its contribution at the local level,” the RSS functionary said.

The RSS ecosystem is largely registered

The result was that RSS “sublet” the formal operational structure to its subsidiaries. So, while RSS remained unregistered, most of its major affiliates operated through registered entities.

Trade union Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh functions within the legal framework governing labour organisations. Educational, social-service and tribal welfare bodies associated with the Sangh generally operate through registered trusts and societies.

“RSS was always an informal organisation. But its associate organisations are all registered and pay income tax. They are audited and their annual reports are published,” said Sharda.

According to RSS leaders, whenever money needs to be raised, assets need to be owned or infrastructure needs to be built, separate registered trusts are created.

The recently inaugurated RSS headquarters in Delhi, functionaries point out, is owned and managed through trust structures rather than by the RSS directly.

1949 constitution: RSS’s early tryst with formalisation

The Sangh’s propensity to remain informal has been such that it took Gandhi’s assassination and a subsequent ban for it to adopt a constitution in 1949. It was a political compromise that RSS entered with the state for lifting of the ban. Significantly, however, the government at the time did not push for the organisation to be registered.

Despite adopting a formal written code, many argue, the RSS continued to stick to its ways. Its initial political arm, the Jana Sangh, was founded just two years after it pledged in its constitution that it would stay away from politics.

As Andersen and Damle note, on key issues such as the selection of the Sarsanghchalak, the organisation refused to compromise. M S Golwalkar later insisted that the RSS had “given up nothing”.

Is the RSS unique?

India has many unregistered associations. Religious communities, sects, akharas and social movements often function without formal incorporation.

What is rare is an organisation that combines all of the following: a century of existence, nationwide presence, a disciplined hierarchy, millions of participants and enormous political influence. Few comparable examples exist.

That does not make the RSS illegal. But it does explain why the question keeps returning.