+91 964 334 1948
31 May 2025, 05:45 AM
The Delhi High Court has upheld the termination of a Commanding Officer in Indian Army who refused to participate in regimental weekly religious parades on the ground that he belonged to Christian faith, despite multiple opportunities and counselling sessions at various levels by the superiors.
A division bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur said that the termination order makes it clear that the officer was resolute in his decision of not attending religious parades and stood outside the premises citing personal religious beliefs, which was corroborated by his Commanding Officer.
The Court said that the termination was based on the officer's conduct and its impact on military discipline and unit cohesion, rather than solely on the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) ratings.
The Court said that it salutes and acknowledge the dedication of those who guard the country's borders day and night in adverse conditions. It added that the ethos of India's Armed Forces places nation before self; and certainly, nation before religion.
“Our Armed Forces comprise of personnel of all religions, castes, creeds, regions, and faiths, whose sole motto is to safeguard the country from external aggressions, and, therefore, they are united by their uniform rather than divided by their religion, caste, or region,” the Court said.
It added that a higher and heightened responsibility is cast on Commanding Officers to ensure that troops under their command are provided with facilities, when required, to observe their respective religious practices.
“The Commanding Officers are to lead by example and not by division; and by placing the cohesion of the Unit above individual religious preferences, particularly when commanding troops who they will lead in combat situations and war,” the Court said.
The bench dismissed the plea by Samuel Kamalesan challenging his termination order and dismissal him from the Indian Army without pension and gratuity. He also sought reinstatement in service.
Kamalesan was commissioned in the Indian Army in March 2017 in the rank of a Lieutenant in the 3rd Cavalry Regiment, which comprises of 3 squadrons of Sikh, Jat, and Rajput personnel. He was made the Troop Leader of Squadron B which comprises of Sikh Personnel.
It was his case that his Regiment maintained only a Mandir and a Gurudwara for its religious needs and parades, and not a Sarv Dharm Sthal which would serve persons of all faiths. He said that there were no church in the premises.
He said that he accompanied his troops to the Mandir and Gurudwara for the weekly religious parades and festivals. He further contended that he sought exemption from entering the innermost part or sanctorum of the temple when the puja or havan or aarti, etc., were taking place.
On the other hand, the respondent argued that since joining the Regiment, Kamalesan failed to attend the Regimental Parades despite multiple attempts by the Commandant and other officers to explain the importance of regimentation to him.
It was submitted that all possible options were exhausted to make Kamalesan understand and conform his conduct to military discipline and
Regimental Tarteeb after which the Chief of Army Staff examined the complete records and was satisfied that his further retention in service has become undesirable on account of his misconduct.
Dismissing the plea, the Court observed that while Regiments in the Armed Forces may historically bear names associated with religion or region, the same 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. At the same time, the Armed Forces also give due respect to the religious beliefs of their personnel,” it said.
The bench said that Kamalesan kept his religion above a lawful command from his superior which was clearly an act of indiscipline.
It said that while, to a civilian, it 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 is for the Armed Forces and the military leadership to determine what actions they feel are important for its Commanding Officers to take in order to effectively motivate the troops under their command, and what may act as a demotivating factor for the Forces or to the bond and unflinching command that the Commanding Officer must yield over the troops. The Courts cannot second-guess the same,” the Court said.
While the Bench recognised the importance of religious freedom, it said that Kamalesan's position as a Commanding Officer required him to prioritize unit cohesion and the morale of his troops. It added that his persistent refusal to fully participate in weekly regimental religious parades, despite extensive counseling and opportunities for compliance, justified the action taken by the respondent.
The bench concluded that the Termination Order specifically noted that Kamalesan's undisciplined behaviour was against all secular norms of the Indian Army and had adversely affected the traditional camaraderie between officers and troops of the Regiment, which would be detrimental in combat situations where rapport with troops is the most important and decisive battle winning factor.
“It also records that the trial of the petitioner by a Court Martial for his misconduct is rendered inexpedient and impracticable in view of the sensitive nature of the case owing to the involvement of religious beliefs,” the Court said.
It concluded that the decision of termination was taken after careful consideration of the specific circumstances of the case and the potential consequences of different courses of action.
Title: SAMUEL KAMALESAN v. UNION OF INDIA