SC upholds dismissal of Christian army officer for refusing to enter temple sanctum

Lieutenant Sameul Kamalesan, a Christian officer, had been dismissed from the Indian Army for refusing to participate in the religious ceremonies of his regiment. On 25 November, the Supreme Court disposed of the challenge against his dismissal and endorsed the Army’s views that his conduct amounted to serious indiscipline inconsistent with leadership responsibilities. 

The Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi held that an officer who leads troops cannot selectively opt out of regimental practices. Responding to his plea that his right under Article 25 had been violated, the Bench observed that not every religious sentiment or practice is an “essential” feature warranting constitutional protection. “You have to respect the collective sentiment of your command as a group leader and lead by example. You are insulting your own group when you refuse to perform rituals,” the Bench told him.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for Kamalesan, urged the Court to apply a proportionality standard. He argued that the officer had served for six years without blemish, faced no court martial or other complaints, and was now being deprived of pension and gratuity for a single refusal rooted in conscience.

He also stressed that the case raised important questions on secularism within the Armed Forces and warranted a full hearing with notice to the Union. The Bench was not persuaded. At one stage, the Chief Justice remarked that the officer was a “misfit” for the Army and described his conduct as “gross indiscipline”.

Background

Commissioned on 11 March 2017 as a Lieutenant in the 3rd Cavalry Regiment—which has Sikh, Jat and Rajput squadrons—Kamalesan was appointed Troop Leader of Squadron B, comprising Sikh personnel.

He contended that the regiment had only a mandir and a gurudwara for religious observances and parades, and no ‘sarva dharm sthal’ formally catering to all faiths. He said he routinely accompanied his men to weekly religious parades and major festivals such as Diwali, Navratri, Lohri, Gurupurab and Holi. His objection, he claimed, was narrow: as a Protestant Christian committed to monotheism, he could not enter the inner sanctum and perform puja, havan or aarti without violating his conscience.

Kamalesan had proposed a compromise: he would remove his shoes and belt, wear a turban where required, stand in the courtyard with his troops and observe the rituals, but would not cross into what he regarded as the zone of worship. He contended that his relationship with his men was built on shared service, daily contact and common living conditions, not on ritual participation alone.

In June 2017, during one such religious parade, the Commandant directed him to enter the sanctum and take part in the puja. When he refused, citing his faith, disciplinary proceedings followed. A show cause notice was issued on 31 January 2019 under Section 19 of the Army Act, 1950 and Rule 14 of the Army Rules, 1954. After considering his reply, the authorities ordered his dismissal on 3 March 2021.

The Delhi High Court’s judgment

Before the Delhi High Court, the Army disputed his characterisation of events and said he had repeatedly failed to attend regimental parades despite counselling by the Commandant and other officers.

The Army argued that devotional practices and associated rituals are a key source of morale and pride for troops. Even the war cries of some troops referenced deities. If an officer distances himself from these shared practices, it contended, regimental cohesion and unity in combat are undermined. Participation in such ceremonies was presented as part of professional military ethos rather than a religious obligation.

Kamalesan contended that Article 33 was not attracted because Parliament had not enacted any law compelling Armed Forces personnel to attend religious ceremonies contrary to their beliefs or authorising discharge for refusing to do so. He alleged that his dismissal rested solely on his religious stance and therefore violated Article 25.

The High Court rejected this argument, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Mohammed Zubair Corporal No.781467-G v Union of India, (2017), where it was held that discipline is the overriding imperative in the Armed Forces and that uniformity in external conduct—including how respect is shown to all religions—supports a cohesive and coordinated force.

The High Court verdict also cited R Viswan v Union of India (1983), where the Supreme Court held that Article 33 authorises Parliament to restrict fundamental rights for the Armed Forces and that the Army Act, 1950 is an exercise of that power. In Union of India v L.D. Balam Singh (2002), the Supreme Court stressed that any such restrictions must be guided by the need to secure proper discharge of duties and maintain discipline.

Drawing from these precedents, the High Court held that while Kamalesan remained free to practise his own faith, his role as Commanding Officer imposed additional obligations: to lead in war, motivate his men, foster esprit de corps and cultivate a sense of belonging. It concluded that the issue was not religious freedom but obedience to military command. 

The High Court further observed that the ‘ordinary person’ standard is inapt when judging Armed Forces requirements. Once the Chief of the Army Staff concluded that the officer’s conduct violated essential military ethos, the Court said it could not substitute its own assessment. His repeated refusal to fully participate in weekly regimental religious parades, despite counselling at multiple levels, demonstrated an unwillingness to adapt to service conditions, it held.

Arguments and outcome in the Supreme Court

In the Supreme Court, the dispute was framed around weekly “religious parades” at what the Army described as a sarva dharm sthal (Kamalesan had contested that the worship area was not a sarva dharm sthal). The Army insisted that accompanying troops into the inner sanctum of the mandir and the gurudwara formed part of that practice.

Sankaranarayanan stressed that Kamalesan had joined multi-faith parades at other locations and that his objection was confined to stepping into the sanctum and performing specifically Hindu rituals. He argued that dismissal without pension for a single act of refusal was disproportionate.

The Army, on its part, told the Court that the officer had been counselled repeatedly, including with the involvement of Christian clergy, but had declined to revise his position, leaving the Army with no option but to terminate his services.

By dismissing his appeal and leaving the Delhi High Court’s reasoning undisturbed, the Supreme Court has now effectively affirmed that, on these facts, institutional demands of discipline, regimental cohesion and obedience may prevail over an individual officer’s claimed right of conscience.