The Delhi High Court has affirmed the dismissal of Lieutenant Samuel Kamalesan, a Christian officer in the Indian Army, who was discharged from service for refusing to partake in religious ceremonies at his regiment’s temple and gurdwara. The court concluded that Kamalesan’s refusal amounted to indiscipline, as he prioritized his personal religious beliefs over lawful commands from his superior officials.
A division bench comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur stated that while individuals serving in the armed forces are entitled to practice their religion, adherence to military discipline and the command structure requires them to fulfill specific duties, irrespective of personal beliefs. The justices remarked, “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.” The court further highlighted that religious rituals and war cries, even if perceived as religious by outsiders, play a crucial role in motivating and unifying troops.
Lt. Kamalesan, who was commissioned in 2017 and assigned to a Sikh regiment, reportedly declined to enter the sanctum sanctorum during regimental religious parades. He argued that participating in such activities would compromise his Christian faith and potentially offend the beliefs of his Sikh comrades. Despite his stance, Kamalesan maintained that his rapport with his soldiers remained intact.
However, the Army contended that his continual refusal to comply, despite consultations with clergy and superior officers, adversely affected unit cohesion and morale. Consequently, he was dismissed from service in 2021.
The court emphasized that the issue at hand was not one of religious freedom but rather of adhering to lawful military orders. It referenced Section 41 of the Army Act, which penalizes disobedience of superior orders, pointing out that Kamalesan had not challenged the validity of the order. His refusal, they noted, constituted a violation of military discipline.
The bench stated, “While, to a civilian, this may appear a bit harsh… the standard of discipline required for the Armed Forces is different,” underscoring the unique demands of military service. The judges further insisted that military decisions should remain largely insulated from judicial interference, unless they are unequivocally arbitrary.
Moreover, the court endorsed the Army’s choice to bypass a court-martial in an effort to avert unnecessary controversy and uphold the secular image of the armed forces.
In this case, Lt. Kamalesan was represented by Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, alongside Advocates Abhishek Jebaraj, A Reyna Shruti, Shourya Desgupta, and Shivani Sagar Kalra. The Union of India was represented in court by Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma and other government lawyers.
