The Delhi High Court recently upheld the dismissal of Lieutenant Samuel Kamalesan, a Christian officer, from the Indian Army for his refusal to participate in religious rituals at his regiment’s temple and gurdwara [Samuel Kamalesan v.
Union of India].
A Bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur emphasised that while the officer had the right to practice his religious beliefs, being the Commanding Officer of his troops, he carried additional responsibilities.
“While Regiments in our Armed Forces may historically bear names associated with religion or region, this 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,” the Court said.
Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur
Commissioned in 2017, Lt Kamalesan, who was assigned to the Sikh squadron, faced disciplinary proceedings for refusing to enter the inner sanctum of religious structures during mandatory regimental parades. He claimed that this was not only as a sign of respect to his Christian faith, but also as a sign of respect towards the sentiments of his troops so that his non-participation in rituals in the inner shrine would not offend their religious sentiments. He also argued that his troops took no offence to this, and it did not affect his strong bond with them.
The Army stated that despite assurances from commanding officers and consultations with Christian clergy suggesting no conflict, he refused to change his stand. He was thus terminated in 2021. According to the Army, the officer’s refusal undermined unit cohesion and troop morale.
The Court ruled that the question in the present case was not of religious freedom, but of following a lawful command of a superior. Section 41 of the Army Act makes it an offence to disobey the order of a superior officer, it noted.
“It is not disputed by the petitioner that his superiors have been calling upon him to attend the religious parades by even entering the sanctum sanctorum and perform the rituals if this would help in boosting the morale of the troops,” it added.
The Court thus concluded that the officer had kept his religion above a lawful command from his superior and ruled that it clearly was an act of indiscipline.
It agreed with the Army’s stand that such refusal to enter the sanctum sanctorum will undermine and act to the detriment of the essential military ethos. It added,
“While, to a civilian, this may appear a bit harsh and may even sound far-fetched, however, the standard of discipline required for the Armed Forces is different. The motivation that is to be instilled in the troops may necessitate actions beyond ordinary civilian standards. Therefore, the ordinary person standard may not be truly applicable while judging the requirements of the Armed Forces.”
The Court said that it must refrain from second-guessing the Army’s decisions unless they are manifestly arbitrary.
It agreed with the Army’s decision to not conduct a court martial as it might have led to unnecessary controversies detrimental to the secular fabric of the Armed Forces.
Gopal Sankaranarayanan
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan with Advocates Abhishek Jebaraj, A Reyna Shruti, Shourya Desgupta and Shivani Sagar Kalra appeared for Kamalesan.
Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, Central Standing Counsel Ripudaman Bhardwaj with Advocates Avshreya Pratap Singh Rudy, Amit Gupta, Kushagra Kumar, Abhinav Bharadwaj and Saurabh Tripathi appeared for the Union of India.