The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the dismissal of Lieutenant Samuel Kamalesan, a Christian Army officer who refused to enter the inner sanctum of his regiment’s temple and gurdwara during mandatory parades. The Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymala Bagchi took a stern view of his conduct, questioning whether such refusal did not amount to hurting the religious sentiments of the soldiers under his command.
“If this is the attitude of an Army officer, then what to say!,” CJI Kant remarked while pronouncing the order rejecting his petition.
Commissioned in 2017 and posted to a Sikh squadron, Lt Kamalesan faced disciplinary proceedings after repeatedly declining to participate in rituals at regimental religious structures. He argued that avoiding the sanctum was both an expression of his Christian faith and a measure taken to respect the sentiments of his troops, so that his presence inside the inner shrine would not offend them.
The Army, however, informed the Court that he had refused to comply even after being assured by senior officers and after consultations with Christian clergy who conveyed that entering the “Sarv Dharm Sthal” as part of official duties would not violate Christian doctrine. His refusal, according to the Army, adversely affected unit cohesion and troop morale, resulting in his termination in 2021.
In May 2024, the Delhi High Court had upheld his dismissal, observing that as an officer leading troops, he bore a heightened responsibility to obey lawful commands. The Court held that the issue was not one of religious freedom but of discipline within the armed forces.
Challenging that order before the Supreme Court, Lt Kamalesan’s counsel, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, questioned the Army’s claim of neutrality. “What is secular when you have Jat regiment, Rajput regiment etc based on castes etc?” he asked. The Bench was unmoved.
CJI Kant emphasised that the Army maintained a secular character and found the officer’s position incompatible with service norms. “Army [is] completely secular in approach. You may do well elsewhere.. any constitutional provision with a grey area, we will look into it. You are guilty of violating … [Army Rules]. You have hurt the feelings of the soldiers,” he observed.
Sankaranarayanan argued that his client could not have been compelled to take part in ceremonies. But the Court pointed to the clergy’s guidance, noting, “Pastor has also counselled you. You cannot have your own private understanding of what your religion says that too when in uniform.”
Justice Bagchi questioned the basis of the officer’s religious objection. “Where in Christian faith bars the entering of sanctum sanctorum of temple?” she asked, adding that Article 25 protects essential practices, not every individual interpretation. “You have to respect the collective faith of the majority of the contingent you are commanding,” she said.
The counsel cited the First Commandment, “You shall have no other gods before me”, but the Bench held that this could not justify disobedience to a lawful command, especially when the officer had disregarded the guidance of Christian clergy.
The officer also disputed the Army’s claim that the regiment had a “Sarv Dharm Sthal”, stating before the High Court that only a mandir and a gurdwara were maintained. CJI Kant responded that refusing to enter solely because the structures were a temple and gurdwara amounted to disregarding the sentiments of the troops. “You refuse to go just because there is temple and Gurdwara there. Does it not amount to hurting the feelings of your soldiers?” he said.
Finding no merit in the challenge, the Supreme Court upheld the dismissal and dismissed the petition.
(Source: Bar and Bench)
Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
