Delhi HC Upholds Army Officer's Dismissal For Refusing To Attend Regimental Religious Parades

The Delhi High Court has upheld the dismissal of Lieutenant Samuel Kamalesan, a Chrisitan, from the Indian Army for his refusal to fully participate in rituals at his regiment's temple and gurdwara, Bar and Bench reported.

A bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur noted that although Kamalesan 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.

"…While there can be no denial of the fact that the petitioner has the right to practice his religious beliefs, however, at the same time, being the Commanding Officer of his troops, he carries additional responsibilities as he has to not only lead them in war but also has to foster bonds, motivate personnel, and cultivate a sense of belonging in the troops…," the Court said, Indian Express reported.

Commissioned in 2017 in the rank of a lieutenant in the third Cavalry Regiment, which comprises three squadrons of Sikh, Jat, and Rajput personnel, Kamalesan was made the troop leader of Squadron B, which comprises Sikh personnel.

In his petition to the court, Kamalesan said that he 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, according to the Bar and Bench report.

He was thus terminated from service 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.

"In the present case, the question is not of religious freedom at all; it is a question of following a lawful command of a superior…In the present case, the petitioner has kept his religion above a lawful command from his superior. This clearly is an act of indiscipline," the Court said in its order.

The Court 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.

“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," it added.

The Court said that it must refrain from second-guessing the Army’s decisions unless they are manifestly arbitrary.

The Court also 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.

Also Read: With Over 34,000 GPUs And Three New LLM Startups, India Doubles Down On Self-Reliant AI Mission