New Delhi: The fundamental right to practise religion can only be considered to have been violated when an essential feature of a religious practice is breached, not when an individual’s interpretation of religious right is offended, the Supreme Court said Tuesday as it upheld the termination of a Christian Army officer who refused to participate in religious ceremonies held at the Sarv Dharm Sthal (place of all religions) of the regiment where he served.
A bench of Chief Justice Suryakant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi agreed with the Delhi High Court’s judgment, which stated that the officer—Samuel Kamalesan—had negatively affected the traditional camaraderie between officers and troops he was leading. He was unwilling to adapt to the requirements of military service and Armed forces, despite having been counselled at multiple levels of the command and at multiple instances.
Kamalesan’s alleged defiance was seen as a violation of Army regulations, one of which says: “Officers will take special care that none of their acts, or of their subordinates, wounds the religious feelings of a person or violates the sanctity of any place held sacred.”
On his part, Kamalesan maintained that he never opposed praying or offering rituals at the Sarv Dharm Sthal. However, the troop he led comprised Sikh soldiers and the only religious shrine that was a part of this regiment was a temple/gurudwara. Kamalesan’s argument was that since he belonged to the monotheistic Christian faith, it was against his religious practice to enter the sanctum sanctorum of a temple/gurudwara, let alone offer rituals there.
CJI Kant and Justice Bagchi, however, were not aligned with Kamalesan’s line of thinking on essential religious practice. They noted that he was counselled by a pastor who assured him that he would not go against his faith if he entered a temple or gurudwara’s sanctum sanctorum. Yet, Kamalesan remained firm on his “personal interpretation” of the faith he followed and defied the secular Army regulations that are intended to foster a bond between the head of the troop and its members.
Justice Bagchi referred to Article 25 of the Constitution, which deals with the fundamental right to practise one’s faith. Explaining what would constitute a breach of this right, he said: “Breach of Article 25 needs to be seen from essential features of religion and not every sentiment of religion.”
Both judges acknowledged and respected the petitioner’s belief in his religion, but reminded him that he must respect the majority faith of the troops he commands.
‘Officer must lead by example’
“As the troop leader, an officer has to lead by example. You insulted your own troops,” the bench told the officer’s counsel, senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan.
The CJI continued to berate the soldier. “You refused to go even when a pastor advised you to. Doesn’t it amount to hurting the sentiments of your soldiers?”
When Sankaranarayanan insisted it wasn’t a Sarv Dharm Sthal (place of all religions), but a temple/gurudwara, the bench retorted: “Why were the authorities compelled to take you to the pastor? And when the pastor says something, how can you have your own personal faith?”
The court referred to the officer’s response to the show cause notice he was served when he continued to disobey his senior’s orders to attend ritual ceremonies with his troops, saying: “You admit (in the response) that it’s your personal interpretation of religious rights and therefore you would not offer flowers in the gurudwara. But as said by the pastor, it was not an essential practice (to stay out of the sanctum sanctorum).
In defence of his client, the counsel said the officer had written multiple times not to make him enter the sanctum sanctorum.
At this, Justice Bagchi asked him: “How does Christian faith bar you from entering the sanctum sanctorum?”
When the lawyer said it was written in the first commandment, the judge replied: “It says have faith in one God. Hindu religion also promotes faith in one God. Also, you cannot have a private understanding of religious practice.”
‘Misfit for the Indian Army’
The CJI then intervened to say: “He may be an outstanding officer, first for hundreds of things, but he is absolutely a misfit for the Indian Army that requires one to be disciplined and have a secular approach.”
The bench refused to look into the petitioner’s request to impose a proportionate punishment, given that he had spent six years in the Army with a clean track record.
The court declined to show any leniency, saying a strong and correct message should be sent so that officers respect sentiments of their soldiers and bond to promote secularism in the Army.
At this Sankaranaryanan criticised caste-based regiments in the Army, saying it was not a secular approach.
Kamalesan had approached the Supreme Court against Delhi High Court’s 30 May judgment that dismissed his petition, filed in 2021, challenging his termination from the Indian Army under section 19 of the Army Act, 1950. His dismissal was pursuant to a show cause notice he received in March 2019.
The termination order charged him with misconduct and abstaining from participating in the religious parades at the regimental Sarv Dharm Sthal.
Commissioned in the 3rd Cavalry regiment in March 2017, the officer was the troop leader in Squadron B, which comprises solely Sikh personnel.
Army officer: Why no court martial?
In his petition before the HC, he said he was terminated without a court martial enquiry, which the Army had declined to hold on the ground that it was impracticable due to the involvement of religious beliefs.
He argued before the HC that he had no hesitation in continuing to attend regimental religious parades, but sought to be relieved from his senior’s order to perform the sacred rituals within the regimental temple/gurudwara during parades. His restriction flowed from his monotheistic faith, he said, and was not intended to offend his troops. He claimed his troop had no issues with his stand, but it was his senior who made it an issue and imposed the condition on him to perform the rituals.
On this account, his senior also made adverse remarks in his annual confidential report.
In response, the Ministry of Defence argued in the high court that he had failed to attend regimental parades despite multiple attempts to explain to him the importance of regimentation.
It was to motivate the troops, develop pride and generate their war-cry from devotional practices to a deity. Distancing himself from the practice would adversely affect the morale of the troops, undermine regimentation, cohesion and unity during combat, the ministry said. The ministry confirmed that the officer’s termination was not on account of dereliction of duty but religious grounds.
(Edited by Viny Mishra)
Also read: Army caught between religious & constitutional values. Defend secular, apolitical nature