'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 practicesJustice 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...

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

Debby Jain

"You have failed to respect the sentiments of your soldiers. Religious ego so high that you don't care about others?" the Court asked.

Tags