SC Upholds Dismissal of Army Officer for Defying Secular Protocols, Calls Conduct ‘Grossest Indiscipline’ by refusing to interfere in the Delhi High Court Judgment

In a significant affirmation of the armed forces’ secular ethos and strict disciplinary code, the Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to interfere with a Delhi High Court ruling that upheld the dismissal of Indian Army officer Samuel Kamalesan.

His termination followed allegations that he repeatedly declined to enter the Sarva Dharma Sthal — a regimental space symbolically representing all faiths — citing his Christian monotheistic beliefs.

The Delhi High Court, in its May 30 judgment, had held that placing one’s religious interpretation above a lawful command amounted to “a clear act of indiscipline”.

Upholding this decision, a bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymala Bagchi said the officer’s conduct reflected the “grossest kind of indiscipline by an Army officer,” and dismissed the Special Leave Petition without hesitation.

The bench remarked that although Kamalesan may possess several commendable qualities as an officer, his inability to adhere to the Army’s secular practices and chain of command rendered him “a misfit for the Indian Army”, an institution built on unity, discipline and religious neutrality.

‘Is this permissible in a disciplined force?’

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for Kamalesan, argued that the officer was unfairly portrayed as “cantankerous”, emphasising that the dispute arose from a single incident and was primarily instigated by the commandant.

He maintained that Kamalesan had no objection to visiting the Sarva Dharma Sthal itself.

However, the counsel added that at the Punjab unit where Kamalesan was posted, no such Sarva Dharma Sthal existed — instead, there was only a gurdwara and a temple.

The officer, he said, objected only when asked to enter their sanctum sanctorum and perform rituals, which, according to him, violated his Christian monotheistic tenets.

“Entering the sanctum sanctorum is a violation of my faith… It’s not that when you join the Army, you lose the vestiges of your religion,” Sankaranarayanan submitted.

But the bench remained unconvinced. Justice Kant pointedly asked whether such selective and personalised religious interpretations could ever be accommodated within a strictly disciplined force.

Justice Bagchi further noted that Kamalesan had even sought guidance from a pastor — who had categorically stated that entering the sanctum would not violate Christian doctrine — yet he chose to disregard that counsel.

‘Insulting your own troops’: SC on leadership expectations

The bench stressed the importance of leading by example in a diverse military environment.

“You command troops who come from different faiths,” Justice Kant said. “If there are Sikh soldiers, there will naturally be a gurdwara. A gurdwara is among the most inclusive places of worship.

In the tone and tenor of his conduct, is he not insulting his own men? We are surprised he disregarded even his pastor’s advice.”

 

Sankaranarayanan countered that the officer had participated in temple visits and festivals in the past, and even now was willing to enter such places of worship — but objected only to performing rituals, such as carrying ceremonial ‘thalis’, which he believed amounted to active worship forbidden by his Protestant beliefs.

The counsel argued that the Constitution protected this limited refusal. But Justice Bagchi reminded him that the officer’s own written response revealed that other Christian officers had advised him to comply, indicating that his interpretation was personal rather than doctrinal.

Balancing Article 25 with military discipline

Justice Bagchi emphasised that Article 25 — the right to practice and profess one’s religion — must be assessed based on the essential features of a faith, not subjective interpretations.

“The pastor has said this does not affect any essential feature of your religion. But you claim your personal understanding overrides even that. Meanwhile, you are commanding men of other faiths. Respect for their collective religious practices is also vital.”

When asked where Christian doctrine prohibits entering another religion’s place of sanctity, the counsel responded, “First command.” Justice Bagchi corrected him:

“The first commandment speaks of faith in one God. Even within Hinduism, the concept of one supreme reality is deeply embedded. The Vedas speak of unity through the multiplicity of forms.”

The court concluded that Kamalesan’s refusal, despite counselling, religious guidance, and established military protocol, amounted to undeniable defiance — incompatible with the secular and disciplined framework of the Indian Army.

#SupremeCourt #IndianArmy #SarvaDharmaSthal #MilitaryDiscipline #SCJudgment #ReligiousFreedom #Article25 #ArmyEthos #SamuelKamalesanCase #SecularForces #RuleOfLaw #BreakingNews #IndiaLegalUpdate