Daijiworld Media Network – New Delhi

New Delhi, May 31: The Delhi High Court has upheld the dismissal of Indian Army officer Samuel Kamalesan, who was removed from service for consistently refusing to participate in weekly regimental religious parades, citing his Christian faith.

The court stated that his actions amounted to indiscipline and were detrimental to the secular and cohesive structure of the armed forces.

Kamalesan, a commanding officer commissioned as a lieutenant in March 2017, served in the 3rd Cavalry Regiment, which includes Sikh, Jat, and Rajput troops. He led a squadron composed primarily of Sikh personnel.

Representational image

According to his petition, while he regularly accompanied his men to the mandir and gurdwara during weekly parades and on festival occasions, he refrained from entering the innermost sanctum during rituals—out of respect for both his monotheistic Christian beliefs and the sentiments of his soldiers.

Kamalesan argued that his request for exemption was limited and respectful, and highlighted the fact that his regiment did not maintain a Sarva Dharma Sthala — a multi-faith worship space — but only a mandir and gurdwara. He claimed that his conduct was not defiant but rooted in religious principle, and challenged his dismissal along with the denial of pension and gratuity.

However, the court ruled that Kamalesan had, despite multiple counselling sessions and opportunities from his superiors, continued to disobey what the Army deemed a lawful order. The refusal, it said, went beyond a matter of belief and entered the realm of professional misconduct.

The High Court observed that the dismissal was not based solely on his Annual Confidential Report (ACR) but on the broader impact of his actions on discipline and unit cohesion. “The armed forces are united by uniform, not divided by religion, caste, or region,” the court noted, adding that the ethos of the services requires personnel to place nation before self and religion.

It further noted that officers, particularly those in command positions, are held to a higher standard of conduct, and have a responsibility to set an example for their troops—not only in operations but also in upholding the values of unity and inclusiveness.

The respondent (Union of India) argued that Kamalesan had consistently declined to attend regimental religious parades, despite repeated efforts to explain their non-denominational ceremonial importance. The chief of Army staff, after reviewing his conduct, deemed his continued retention undesirable due to what was described as a pattern of misconduct.

The court emphasised that while religious freedom is respected, armed forces operate on discipline and hierarchy, and officers cannot subordinate duty to personal faith. “The prioritisation of religion over a lawful command constitutes indiscipline,” the court ruled, noting that effective leadership, troop morale, and operational readiness cannot be compromised by personal objections to ceremonial traditions.

While a court-martial could have been conducted, the judgment stated it was impractical due to the sensitive religious nature of the issue. The court therefore upheld the Army’s decision to proceed with a disciplinary discharge.

The High Court also addressed the broader debate around religious symbolism within the armed forces, stating that while regimental names, war cries, or traditions may seem religious to outsiders, they form part of a historical and ceremonial identity, not a violation of secular values.

In its conclusion, the court upheld the termination order, affirming that Kamalesan’s behaviour had conflicted with the Indian Army’s secular ethos and had harmed the officer-soldier camaraderie essential in combat situations. “It is not the role of the court to dictate the standards by which the armed forces maintain discipline. That responsibility lies with military leadership,” the court stated firmly.

Kamalesan’s plea for reinstatement, pension, and gratuity was therefore dismissed.