'Grossest indiscipline': Supreme Court upholds dismissal of Christian Army officer who refused to join regiment's religious rituals

A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi said his conduct amounted to a serious lapse in military discipline, LiveLaw reported.

“What message was he sending? He should have been removed for this alone. This is gross indiscipline from an Army officer,” Chief Justice Kant, who took office on November 24, remarked while rejecting the petition.

Kamalesan had argued that being compelled to enter the sanctum during rituals violated his religious freedom under Article 25.

He maintained that he regularly accompanied his troops to both the temple and the gurdwara during weekly parades but objected only to stepping inside the innermost chamber.

His lawyer, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, contended that the dismissal was triggered solely by this single instance and stressed that the officer had previously participated in activities at “sarva dharma sthals.”

The bench, however, questioned the officer’s attitude.

“Can such cantankerous behaviour be tolerated in a disciplined force?” CJI Kant asked, pointing out that the regiment also had a gurdwara for its Sikh personnel.

The Chief Justice noted that “a gurdwara is among the most inclusive spaces” and suggested that the officer’s stance amounted to disrespecting other faiths.

Justice Bagchi also referred to a pastor’s opinion indicating that entering such spaces did not contravene Christian doctrine.

Sankaranarayanan argued that this pastoral advice only applied to a Sarva Dharma Sthal, not specifically a Hindu temple.

Counsel for the petitioner clarified that Kamalesan objected only to being required to “perform worship,” saying, “I cannot be compelled to worship a deity. The Constitution protects that freedom.”

He alleged the issue was escalated unnecessarily by one senior officer and pointed out that the officer’s performance reports improved after a change in command.

However, the bench noted that Kamalesan had even refused to enter a ‘sarva dharma sthal,’ despite the pastor confirming it would not violate his beliefs.

Justice Bagchi reminded the counsel that “Article 25 protects essential religious practices, not every personal sentiment,” adding that as a leader, the officer was expected to honour the faith of the soldiers he commanded.

When the counsel referred to Christian commandments against worshipping other gods, he emphasised that the problem lay not in entering the premises but in expectations of ritual participation.

The Chief Justice responded, “Leaders must lead by example,” while Justice Bagchi said the officer could not rely on his “private understanding” of faith once in uniform, especially after pastoral guidance.

With the court refusing to intervene, the petitioner sought a reduction of punishment on proportionality grounds, but that request was also dismissed.

The CJI acknowledged that Kamalesan may have been proficient in many areas but said the Army’s secular character and discipline could not be compromised.

“You have failed to respect the sentiments of your own troops,” the CJI observed.

When the counsel warned that the ruling would “send a wrong message,” CJI Kant replied, “This will send a strong message,” LiveLaw reported.

Commissioned in March 2017 into the 3rd Cavalry Regiment—comprising Sikh, Jat, and Rajput troops—Kamalesan served as the Troop Leader of a Sikh squadron.

Before the High Court, he stated that the regiment had a mandir and a gurdwara but no Sarv Dharm Sthal or church.

The Army, however, argued that he repeatedly avoided regimental religious parades despite multiple counselling attempts.

After reviewing the full record, the Chief of Army Staff found his continuation in service unsuitable.

The High Court upheld the dismissal, noting that while regiments may carry religious or regional identifiers, the armed forces operate on a fundamentally secular ethos.

The court said civilians might view the punishment as harsh, but military discipline operates by different standards.

It concluded that his refusal undermined unit cohesion and the camaraderie vital in combat, thereby justifying termination along with the denial of pension and gratuity.