'Gross Indiscipline' : Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal Of Christian Army Officer For Refusal To Participate In Religious Parades

The Supreme Court today dismissed a petition filed by a Christian officer named Samuel Kamalesan challenging his termination from the Indian Armed Forces over refusal to participate in regimental weekly religious parades.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi refused to interfere with the Delhi High Court order, which upheld his termination from service.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, for the petitioner, told the bench that his client was dismissed only for one infraction, which was his refusal to enter the innermost sanctum sanctorum of a temple at the place of his posting. He added that the petitioner used to participate in places where there were "sarva dharma sthals"

"Is this sort of cantankerous conduct permissible in a disciplined force?" Justice Kant asked.

Sankaranarayanan said that there was no "Sarva Dharma Sthal" in the place where he was posted. There was only a gurudwara and a temple in that place. He submitted that the petitioner stood outside the temple, and refrained from entering the sanctum sanctorium since he was a follower of a monotheistic faith, and would be against his Christian faith. "He is not a cantankerous man. He is a disciplined man in all other respects," Sankaranarayanan said.

"What kind of message he has been sending...he should have been thrown out for this only...grossest kind of indiscipline by an army official." Chief Justice Kant observed. Sankaranarayanan replied that just because a person joined the armed forces, he does not lose his fundamental right to religion guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution.

At this juncture, Justice Bagchi pointed out that a pastor had opined that entering the sanctum would not violate the tenets of Christianity. Sankaranarayanan replied that the pastor's statement was in the context of a Sarva Dharma Sthal and not a temple.

CJI Kant said that the place had a Gurudwara as well, since there were Sikh soldiers in the regiment. "Gurudwara is one of the most secular places. The manner in which he is behaving, is he not insulting the other religions? Religious ego such high that he does not care about others?" When CJI Kant said that he was not required to perform any religious rituals, Sankaranarayanan said that as a troop leader, he would be required to lead the rituals as well.

Sankaranarayanan said that the petitioner is ready to undertake to enter the sanctum sanatorium, but added that no rituals should be forced upon him. The senior counsel contended that the issue was created by only one superior officer. "His commandant forced him. He insisted. This one man repeatedly insists that I must. I said I will not enter only when that kind of religious ceremony takes place. The impugned judgment is on disobeying of superior's command. They quote S.41. Entry has never been a problem, conducting the ceremony can't be forced on me. Just see the law under which I am terminated. Once this Commandant moved, my ACR went back to being okay."

The counsel argued that the petitioner raised objections only when he was asked to carry out the worship. "I cannot be forced to worship a deity. Constitution permits that much freedom," Sankaranarayanan submitted.

CJI Kant then pointed out that the petitioner had even refused to enter the 'sarva dharma sthal' by saying that there was also a gurudwara and a temple there. CJI Kant further said that the pastor of the local church also opined that entering the 'sarva dharma sthal' would not impinge on his faith. In this context, the CJI observed that the petitioner had also refused to enter the 'sarva dharma sthal'.

Article 25 protection only for essential religious practices

Justice Bagchi said that the opinion of the pastor is the factor which distinguishes his case. "Article 25 is protection for essential religious features, not every religious sentiment...you have to respect the collective faith of the majority that you are commanding...where in Christian faith is entering the temple or another religious place is barred?"Justice Bagchi asked.

"The first commandment- thou shall not worship another god," Sankaranarayanan replied. He added that the entry was not the problem, and his concern was about the apprehension that he would be forced to perform rituals.

"Leaders have to lead by example. You are insulting your troops," CJI Kant said.  "When a pastor counselled you, you leave it at that. You can't have your private understanding of what your religion permits. That too in uniform," Justice Bagchi added.

When the bench expressed its disinclination, Sankaranarayanan made a request for a reduction of the penalty, on the ground of proportionality, saying that he has otherwise an unblemished service.

The bench declined this prayer as well, observing that the petitioner's conduct cannot be condoned in any manner. "You may be outstanding in 100 things but...Indian army is known for its secular approach. When you cannot maintain discipline there...You have failed to respect the sentiments of your own soldiers," CJI Kant said.

When the bench was about to dictate the order of dismissal, the senior counsel said, "this will send a wrong message." "This will send a strong message," CJI Kant retorted, dismissing the matter.

Background

To recap, Kamalesan was commissioned in the Indian Army in March 2017 on the rank of a Lieutenant in the 3rd Cavalry Regiment, which comprises of 3 squadrons of Sikh, Jat, and Rajput personnel. He was made the Troop Leader of Squadron B which comprised of Sikh personnel.

As per Kamalesan, his regiment maintained only a Mandir and a Gurudwara for its religious needs and parades, and not a Sarv Dharm Sthal which would serve persons of all faiths. He claimed before the High Court that there was no church in the premises. It was further averred that he accompanied his troops to the Mandir and Gurudwara for the weekly religious parades and festivals, but sought exemption from entering the innermost part or sanctorum of the temple when the puja or havan or aarti, etc., were taking place.

On the other hand, the respondent argued that since joining the regiment, Kamalesan failed to attend the regimental parades despite multiple attempts by the Commandant and other officers to explain the importance of regimentation to him. It was submitted that all possible options were exhausted to make Kamalesan understand and conform his conduct to military discipline and Regimental Tarteeb, after which the Chief of Army Staff examined the complete records and was satisfied that his further retention in service has become undesirable on account of his misconduct.

Dismissing Kamalesan's plea, the High Court observed that while regiments in the Armed Forces may historically bear names associated with religion or region, the same does not undermine the secular ethos of the institution, or of personnel who are posted in these regiments.

“There are also War Cries which, to an outsider, may sound religious in nature, however, they serve a purely motivational function, intended to foster solidarity and unity amongst the troops. At the same time, the Armed Forces also give due respect to the religious beliefs of their personnel,” it said.

Further, it was observed that Kamalesan kept his religion above a lawful command from his superior which was clearly an act of indiscipline. The Court said that to a civilian, it may appear a bit harsh and even sound far-fetched, however, the standard of discipline required for the Armed Forces is different.

While recognizing the importance of religious freedom, the Court said that Kamalesan's position as a Commanding Officer required him to prioritize unit cohesion and the morale of his troops. It added that his persistent refusal to fully participate in weekly regimental religious parades, despite extensive counseling and opportunities for compliance, justified the action taken by the respondent.

The Court concluded that the Termination Order specifically noted that Kamalesan's undisciplined behavior was against all secular norms of the Indian Army and had adversely affected the traditional camaraderie between officers and troops of the regiment, which would be detrimental in combat situations where rapport with troops is the most important and decisive battle winning factor.

Case Title: SAMUEL KAMALESAN Versus UNION OF INDIA, SLP(C) No. 25838/2025 

Click Here To Read/Download Order