The Supreme Court of India delivered a strong verdict on Tuesday, upholding the Indian Army's decision to dismiss a Christian lieutenant who refused to participate in religious rituals at a gurdwara with his troops. The court severely criticized the officer for prioritizing his personal interpretation of Christianity over the religious sentiments of the soldiers under his command.
Court's Strong Stance on Religious Accommodation in Army
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard the appeal filed by Lieutenant Samuel Kamalesan challenging his dismissal from service. The officer had been commanding a cavalry troop consisting primarily of Sikhs, Rajputs, and Jats when the incident occurred.
The lieutenant had argued that while he participated in festivals like Holi, Diwali, and Lori, he could not be compelled to offer flowers or hold a 'thali' inside a gurdwara as these actions constituted religious rituals forbidden by his faith. "My religion does not permit me to worship another god," Kamalesan stated in his defense.
Army's Efforts to Accommodate Religious Concerns
The court revealed that Army authorities had made significant efforts to address the lieutenant's concerns before proceeding with disciplinary action. Records showed that Kamalesan was taken to a renowned pastor in Chandigarh who advised him that entering the sanctum sanctorum of a 'sarv dharma sthal' (multi-faith place) would not violate his religious rights.
"Despite that you remained obstinate and refused to go into the gurdwara where your troops were praying. This demonstrates your mindset and your religious ego," the bench observed. The court noted that the officer had also ignored advice from fellow Christian officers in the Army who recommended participation in the troops' religious rituals.
Fundamental Rights vs Military Discipline
Senior advocate G Sankaranarayanan, representing Lieutenant Kamalesan, challenged the dismissal order on grounds that it violated his client's fundamental right to practice and profess his religion under Article 25 of the Constitution. However, the bench firmly rejected this argument.
"You cannot claim breach of fundamental right to religion just because one's sentiments get violated," the court stated. "You must respect the faith of majority of the troops under your command... He may be an outstanding officer, but unfit to be in the secular and highly disciplined Army."
When the counsel argued that the Army wasn't entirely secular due to its caste-based regiments, the bench declined to engage in that debate, focusing instead on the specific case of disobedience.
The Supreme Court dismissed the officer's appeal without even requiring Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati to respond to the petition, sending what the bench described as "a correct and strong signal" about the importance of religious accommodation and discipline within the armed forces.
