The Delhi High Court has upheld the dismissal of Lieutenant Samuel Kamalesan, a Christian officer of the Indian Army, who was terminated in 2021 for refusing to participate in religious rituals at his regiment’s temple and gurdwara. The ruling, delivered by a Bench comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur on May 30, 2025, in the case Samuel Kamalesan v. Union of India [W.P.(C) 7564/2021], emphasised that while the officer had the right to practice his religious beliefs, his role as a Commanding Officer carried additional responsibilities to prioritise unit cohesion and troop morale over personal religious convictions.
Background of the Case
Lieutenant Samuel Kamalesan was commissioned into the Indian Army on March 11, 2017, as a Lieutenant in the 3rd Cavalry Regiment, a combat unit of the Armoured Corps with a fixed class composition of Rajput, Sikh, and Jat troops. Assigned as the Troop Leader of ‘B’ Squadron, comprising Sikh personnel, Kamalesan was required to participate in mandatory regimental religious rituals held at the regiment’s Mandir and Gurudwara.
Kamalesan, a Protestant Christian adhering to a monotheistic faith that prohibits idol worship, claimed that the regiment maintained only a Mandir and a Gurudwara, with no ‘Sarv Dharm Sthal’ (a place of worship for all faiths) or church on the premises. He attended weekly religious rituals and festivals such as Diwali, Navratri, Lohri, Gurpurab, and Holi alongside his troops but sought exemption from entering the innermost sanctum of the temple or gurdwara during rituals like puja, havan, or aarti.
He argued that this was “not only as a sign of respect to his monotheistic Christian faith, but also as a sign of respect towards the sentiments of his troops so that his non-participation while in the inner shrine would not desecrate and offend their religious sentiments.” He stated that he remained in the temple courtyard, adhering to protocols such as removing his shoes and belt, and wearing a turban when necessary, to show solidarity with his troops.
Kamalesan maintained that his troops took no offence to his actions, and he forged a strong bond with them based on “mutual respect, allegiance to the same Flag and Nation, and on the basis of their Indianness, shared meals, exercises, sleeping quarters, and assignments.” He asserted that his non-participation in the inner sanctum rituals did not affect his relationship with his troops or his duties as an officer.
Disciplinary Actions and Termination
The conflict arose in June 2017 when the then Commandant of the Regiment (referred to as Commandant-1) directed Kamalesan to enter the inner sanctum and participate in the puja. Kamalesan respectfully declined, citing his Christian faith, and requested to remain in the temple courtyard.
According to the petitioner, Commandant-1 refused this request and initiated “extreme disciplinary action” against him, including open harassment, verbal abuse, and threats to end his career. Kamalesan alleged that he was subjected to measures such as the ‘patti parade’ and sleep-depriving guard checks, and faced belittlement of his faith in front of peers.
In January 2019, Kamalesan received a Show Cause Notice from the Army, dated January 31, 2019, accusing him of refusing to enter the regiment’s ‘Sarv Dharm Sthal’ and participate in religious functions, which was deemed detrimental to unit cohesion and military discipline. The notice, issued under Section 19 of the Army Act, 1950, read with Rule 14 of the Army Rules, 1954, stated:
“WHEREAS, you have refused to enter the Regiment Sarv Dharm Sthal which comprises of Mandir, Church and Gurudwara and you have not attended any religious functions in the Regiment. On explaining the ethos of the Indian Army and its secular approach and the necessity to bond with men, you have been indifferent and resolute on your stand… you have also failed to exhibit the desired level of motivation to learn and adopt the facets of Unit Tartib, regimental ethos and professional aspects leading to a total disconnect with your men. Such behaviour does not bode well and will be detrimental in combat situations where rapport with men can be the deciding factor between success and failure.”
The notice further noted that the Chief of Army Staff had deemed Kamalesan’s retention in service undesirable due to his misconduct and that a court-martial was considered “inexpedient and impracticable” given the sensitive nature of the issue involving religious beliefs.
Kamalesan responded to the notice in March 2019, asserting that he attended all required parades but abstained from inner sanctum rituals to avoid violating his conscience. He claimed he was not served an official copy of the Army’s rejoinder to his response nor given an opportunity to reply further.
In February 2019, a discipline and vigilance ban was imposed on him, which he learned about only in January 2020. On December 29, 2020, he filed a Statutory Complaint under Section 27 of the Army Act, alleging tampering with his Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) and discriminatory treatment. Despite his improved ACR rating of 7/9 in 2019 under a new Commandant (Commandant-2), which praised his dedication and bond with troops, Kamalesan was dismissed from service on March 3, 2021, without pension or gratuity.
Court Proceedings and Arguments
Kamalesan challenged his dismissal in the Delhi High Court, represented by Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, along with Advocates Abhishek Jebaraj, A. Reyna Shruti, Shourya Desgupta, and Shivani Sagar Kalra. He argued that his termination violated his fundamental right to religious freedom under Article 25 of the Constitution of India, as his Protestant Christian faith prohibited idol worship. He contended that there was no ‘Sarv Dharm Sthal’ in the regiment, only a Mandir and Gurudwara, and that his respectful abstention from inner sanctum rituals was not a refusal to attend parades but a conscientious choice to avoid desecrating the sacred spaces of his troops’ faiths. He cited Paragraph 332 of the Regulations for the Army, 1987, which mandates respect for religious customs and prohibits actions that wound religious feelings, asserting that his conduct complied with this regulation.
Sankaranarayanan argued that Kamalesan faced discriminatory treatment, including denial of courses, promotions, and postings, and that his termination without a court-martial violated Rule 14(2) of the Army Rules. He relied on Supreme Court judgments, including Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986), to argue that Article 25 protects the right to abstain from religious practices contrary to one’s faith, and Modern Dental College v. State of M.P. (2016) and Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) to assert that restrictions on fundamental rights must be proportionate and least restrictive. He further contended that the Army failed to provide evidence, such as complaints from troops, to show that Kamalesan’s actions undermined unit cohesion.
The Union of India, represented by Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, Central Standing Counsel Ripudaman Bhardwaj, and Advocates Avshreya Pratap Singh Rudy, Amit Gupta, Kushagra Kumar, Abhinav Bharadwaj, and Saurabh Tripathi, defended the dismissal. The Army argued that Kamalesan’s refusal to fully participate in regimental religious parades, despite counseling from multiple levels of command, including the Commandant, other Christian officers, and a local pastor, constituted an act of indiscipline under Section 41 of the Army Act, which penalizes willful defiance of a superior’s lawful command.
The respondent emphasised that regimental parades are a military duty, not a religious obligation, and are critical for fostering camaraderie and morale, particularly in combat situations. The Army cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Mohammed Zubair Corporal v. Union of India (2017), which held that Armed Forces personnel cannot prioritise personal religious beliefs over service unity and discipline.
The Army further argued that a court-martial was deemed “inexpedient and impracticable” due to the sensitive nature of the religious issue, as it could lead to controversies detrimental to the secular fabric of the Armed Forces. The respondent noted that Kamalesan was given multiple opportunities to comply, including counselling sessions and a personal interview with the General Officer Commanding, 2 Corps, on June 2, 2020, but he remained resolute in his refusal.
Court’s Ruling and Reasoning
In its judgment, the Delhi High Court acknowledged the secular ethos of the Indian Army, stating:
“While Regiments in our Armed Forces may historically bear names associated with religion or region, this 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.”
The Court emphasised the unique standards of discipline required in the Armed Forces, noting:
“While, to a civilian, this 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.”
The Bench ruled that the issue was not one of religious freedom but of Kamalesan’s failure to obey a lawful command from his superior, as outlined in Section 41 of the Army Act: “The petitioner does not dispute that his superiors have been calling upon him to attend the religious parades by even entering the sanctum sanctorum and perform the rituals if this would help in boosting the morale of the troops… The petitioner has kept his religion above a lawful command from his superior. This clearly is an act of indiscipline.”
The Court found that Kamalesan’s persistent refusal to fully participate in regimental parades, despite extensive counselling, undermined the “essential military ethos” of unit cohesion and troop morale, which could be detrimental in combat situations. It cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in R. Viswan v. Union of India (1983), which upheld the constitutional validity of restrictions on fundamental rights for Armed Forces personnel under Article 33 to ensure discipline and duty discharge.
Regarding the decision to forgo a court-martial, the Court agreed with the Army’s position that it was “inexpedient and impracticable” due to the sensitive nature of the religious issue. The judgment referenced Union of India v. Harjeet Singh Sandhu (2001), which clarified that the terms “inexpedient” and “impracticable” involve subjectivity based on the prevailing circumstances and that a court-martial could be bypassed if it risked broader harm.
The Court noted: “We find that in such circumstances, a Court Martial might have led to unnecessary controversies, which could be detrimental to the secular fabric of the Armed Forces. The decision to not hold a Court Martial, therefore, appears to be well thought out and within the powers conferred on the Central Government and the Chief of Army Staff under Rule 14(2) of the Army Rules.”
The Court also addressed Kamalesan’s allegations of ACR tampering and discriminatory treatment, finding them unsubstantiated. It noted that his improved ACR rating in 2019 under Commandant-2 did not negate the core issue of his refusal to comply with military discipline. The termination process was deemed procedurally compliant, with Kamalesan receiving adequate notice and opportunity to respond through the Show Cause Notice.
The Delhi High Court dismissed Kamalesan’s petition, finding no grounds to interfere with the termination order dated March 3, 2021. The ruling underscored the primacy of military discipline and unit cohesion over individual religious preferences in the context of the Armed Forces, affirming that the Army’s decision was neither arbitrary nor capricious. All pending applications were disposed of, with no order as to costs.
The judgment reinforces the delicate balance between respecting individual religious beliefs and upholding the secular and disciplined ethos of the Indian Army, particularly for officers in leadership roles responsible for fostering unity among diverse troops.
