SC Upholds Dismissal of Army Officer for Refusing Regimental Religious Rituals

The Supreme Court on Tuesday strongly criticised a Christian Army officer for refusing to participate in religious ceremonies conducted at his regiment’s temple and gurdwara. The Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymala Bagchi questioned whether such refusal did not amount to hurting the religious sentiments of the soldiers serving under him.

“If this is the attitude of an Army officer, then what to say!” the CJI remarked, while upholding the dismissal of Lieutenant Samuel Kamalesan in the case Samuel Kamalesan v. Union of India.

The Court emphasised that officers in the armed forces are expected to maintain unity, discipline, and respect for the diverse beliefs of their colleagues.

Commissioned in 2017 and posted with a Sikh squadron, Lieutenant Samuel Kamalesan faced disciplinary action for repeatedly refusing to enter the inner sanctum of religious structures during mandatory regimental parades. Kamalesan defended his stance saying it was both an expression of respect for his Christian faith and a gesture meant to avoid hurting the religious sentiments of his troops, as his entry into the inner shrine might be misunderstood.

The Army, however, maintained that despite guidance from senior officers and advice from Christian clergy—who reportedly assured him that such participation would not conflict with his faith—the officer refused to alter his position. He was dismissed from service in 2021, with the Army stating that his conduct undermined unit cohesion, discipline, and troop morale.

In May this year, the Delhi High Court upheld the termination, noting that as a commanding officer responsible for leading his troops, Kamalesan carried a higher duty to follow lawful orders. The Court observed that the issue at hand was not religious freedom but obedience to legitimate command within a disciplined force.

Challenging the High Court’s decision, Kamalesan approached the Supreme Court. During the hearing on Tuesday, the Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymala Bagchi expressed strong disapproval of the officer’s stand, calling him a complete “misfit” for the Army.

“Army is completely secular in approach. You may do well elsewhere,” CJI Kant remarked, adding, “You are guilty of violating [Army Rules]. You have hurt the feelings of the soldiers.”

Representing Kamalesan, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan argued, “What is secular when you have Jat regiment, Rajput regiment etc, based on castes?” The Bench, however, remained unconvinced.

The Court noted that the officer did not heed his Pastor’s advice, who had reportedly stated that entering the ‘Sarv Dharm Sthal’ as part of his duties would not contradict Christian principles. Sankaranarayanan contended that such participation could not be forced upon him, questioning the existence of a multi-faith structure.

CJI Kant dismissed the argument, stating, “If there is a ‘Sarv Dharm Sthal’, how does it violate rights? You refuse to go just because there is a temple and a gurdwara there. Does it not amount to hurting the feelings of your soldiers?”

With this, the Supreme Court upheld the Army’s decision to dismiss Lieutenant Kamalesan.

During the hearing, Justice Joymala Bagchi observed that Lieutenant Kamalesan appeared to have relied on his own personal interpretation of Christian teachings to justify refusing entry into the religious structures.

“But this is not an essential religious practice if we consider the views of the Pastor or other Christian soldiers,” Justice Bagchi noted. She emphasized that Article 25 of the Constitution protects only essential religious practices, not every individual sentiment. “You have to respect the collective faith of the majority of the contingent you are commanding. Where in Christian faith is it said that one is barred from entering the sanctum sanctorum of a temple?” she asked.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan argued that the First Commandment of the Bible—“You shall have no other gods before me”—formed the basis of his client's refusal. However, the Bench was not persuaded.

“That is only the faith aspect,” the Court responded, adding that the Pastor had already advised Kamalesan that entering the Sarv Dharm Sthal would not violate Christian doctrine. “You cannot have your own private understanding of religion, especially when in uniform.”

Concluding that there was no valid ground to interfere with the disciplinary action, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition and upheld the officer’s termination.

Also Read: Supreme Court vs Tamil Nadu Governor: A Constitutional Conundrum Unfolds