In a ruling that touches the sensitive intersection of military discipline and religious freedom, the Delhi High Court has upheld the dismissal of Lieutenant Samuel Kamalesan, a Christian officer in the Indian Army, for refusing to participate in his regiment’s religious rituals. The case, Samuel Kamalesan v. Union of India, was heard by a Bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur, who held that the officer’s refusal constituted insubordination and undermined unit cohesion.
The court concluded that Kamalesan had placed his religious beliefs above a lawful command from his superior officers during mandatory regimental parades, a move that, in their view, amounted to a serious breach of discipline.
Discipline vs. Belief: The Regimental Challenge
The incident dates back to Kamalesan’s posting with a Sikh regiment, where he refused to enter the inner sanctum of religious structures—including the regimental temple and gurdwara—during ceremonial parades. Commissioned in 2017, the officer had reportedly cited his Christian faith as the reason for abstaining, stating it would be against his religious conscience to enter a non-Christian shrine.
However, Kamalesan also argued that his decision was an effort to respect both his beliefs and those of his troops. According to him, his troops never objected to his abstention and understood it as a matter of personal faith.
CBI Arrests ED Deputy Director in ₹50 Lakh Bribery Scandal Tied to Bhubaneswar Mine Owner
But the Army took a different view. Following multiple consultations with clergy and commanding officers, the Army deemed that Kamalesan’s continued non-compliance, despite reassurances that participation would not amount to apostasy, constituted a refusal to obey lawful orders. He was discharged from service in 2021.
The Court’s Reasoning: Lawful Command Trumps Religious Conscience
The Delhi High Court’s decision emphasized the sanctity of military command structures. Citing Section 41 of the Army Act, which criminalizes disobedience to a superior officer’s order, the judges stated that discipline within the Armed Forces operates under different norms from civilian institutions.
The Bench stated:
“The petitioner had kept his religion above a lawful command from his superior and this clearly was an act of indiscipline.”
The court also echoed the Army’s assertion that participation in the rituals served to promote unity and morale. The Bench dismissed arguments of religious discrimination, noting that regimental war cries or symbols—though potentially religious in tone—function as motivational tools, not sectarian mandates.
In an important observation, the court stated:
“While regiments in our Armed Forces may historically bear names associated with religion, this does not undermine the secular ethos of the institution.”
Implications: A Secular Force or a Ritualistic Tradition?
This verdict reopens the debate around regimental traditions rooted in specific religious identities and their place in a secular military institution. The Indian Armed Forces, while constitutionally secular, often incorporate rituals associated with regimental history and culture—especially in units with deep regional or religious affiliations.
The court’s judgment avoided delving into the broader constitutional debate of balancing Article 25 (freedom of religion) with institutional discipline but firmly placed military command as paramount.
Lt. Kamalesan was represented by Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, while the Union of India was represented by Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma.
As the judgment stands, it sets a precedent affirming that in the Armed Forces, discipline may outweigh personal religious beliefs when the two come into conflict—a stance likely to be debated in legal and policy circles for time to come.