Yesterday, the Supreme Court (SC) upheld the dismissal of a Christian Army Officer for refusing the regiment’s temple rituals. The SC dismissed Lt. Colonel Samuel Kamalesan’s plea challenging his termination from the Army over his refusal to participate in his regiment’s weekly religious ceremonies at his unit in Mamoon, Punjab.
The bench, led by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, dismissed the petition while underscoring that the Armed Forces stand for discipline, cohesion, and collective morale, and those values cannot be compromised in the name of personal faith.
Appearing for Lt. Colonel, Senior Advocate G. Sankaranarayanan, argued that the case raised a serious constitutional question: is the right to profess and practice faith under Article 25 subordinate to military discipline?
Right from the start, the CJI appeared unconvinced by the argument that the officer’s faith justified refusing participation in rituals at places of worship other than his own. “ What kind of message he has been sending, he should have thrown out for this only, grossest kind of indiscipline by an army official”. Chief Justice Kant observed.
“If somebody asks you to perform rituals then it is fine, but there is no rituals in Gurudwara” the CJI remarked, questioning the officer’s refusal even to enter Gurudwara. The CJI noted that officer did not even listen to the pastor, referring to counseling given by the church representative urging hi to attend the Sarv Dharm Sthal, a multi faith space. Justice Bagchi remarked that “ You can not have your private understanding of what your religion permits. That too in uniform. The officer could not claim a personal interpretation of religious obligations beyond what his own clergy endorsed”. Justice Bagchi pointed out that a pastor had opined that entering sanctum would not violate the tenets of Christianity. The CJI further said “ Leaders have to lead by an example. You are insulting your troops”.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the officer had always participated in social celebrations including Diwali, Lohri and Holi, and abstained only from religious rituals that violated his conscience.. The counsel further added that “ Army had acted harshly and prematurely, without notice or proportional consideration, even though the officer had an unblemished service record of six years. You can not be forced to worship deity. Constitution permits that much freedom. The termination order will send the wrong message”.
At this instance, Justice Bagchi said “ Breach of Article 25 needs to be seen from the angle of essential practices, not every sentiment of religion. As a commanding officer, he was also constitutionally expected to respect the collective faith of the majority”.
The bench was particularly concerned about cohesion within the regiment, noting that Sikh soldiers regarded the Gurudwara as the most secular space available and the officer’s refusal risked alienating his own men. For the army we are not going to open this kind of issue, adding that existing regulatory provisions were not under challenge. The court said that the petitioner had shown unwillingness to respect the sentiments of soldiers under his command and that affected the discipline. The bench further added that although Kamalesan may otherwise have been a capable officer, he was “ a misfit for the Indian Army”, especially given the responsibilities placed on the armed forces today.
This judgment gives clear message that in the armed forces there is no place for your personal religious faith. It is the collective faith of all soldiers/officers etc, and seniors officers have to act accordingly. You can not say my religion/faith does not permit this etc. etc.
Waiting for your views on this blog.
Anil Malik
Mumbai, India
26th November 2025