Delhi High Court backs Army's dismissal of Christian officer over pooja refusal

In a significant judgment underscoring the primacy of discipline in the armed forces, the Delhi High Court has upheld the dismissal of a Christian officer from the Indian Army who had refused to participate in a religious pooja during a regimental parade. The court ruled that prioritizing personal religious beliefs over lawful military orders constitutes an act of indiscipline, especially for commanding officers tasked with fostering unity and morale among their troops.

The order, passed on May 30 by a division bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur, found no grounds to interfere with the Army’s decision to terminate Lieutenant Samuel Kamalesan, who was commissioned into the 3rd Cavalry Regiment in March 2017 and dismissed in March 2021 following repeated refusals to participate in Hindu rituals held during weekly parades.

Clash of command and conscience

Kamalesan, a Protestant Christian, argued that his monotheistic faith prohibited participation in polytheistic rituals. His refusal to enter the sanctum sanctorum during a weekly pooja — despite instructions from his commandant — triggered disciplinary proceedings that culminated in his dismissal. He also pointed out the absence of a church or an all-faith prayer site (sarv dharm sthal) within the regiment, which maintained only a mandir and a gurdwara for religious observances.

The officer claimed that adverse remarks were made in his Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) during the tenure of the previous commandant, allegedly in response to his religious objections. However, the High Court found that Kamalesan’s continued noncompliance, even after multiple counseling efforts, reflected an unwillingness to adapt to the fundamental expectations of military service.

Morale, not mandate

The Centre defended the dismissal by arguing that regimental practices — including devotional rituals and war cries — are crucial for unit morale and battlefield motivation, not expressions of religious doctrine. "When an officer distances himself from these practices, it adversely affects the morale of the troops,” the Centre contended, emphasizing that such participation is a military duty, not a personal religious act.

The court concurred, stating that while individuals have the right to practice their faith, commanding officers bear an additional burden: leading by example to preserve the integrity and cohesion of their units.

“This is not a question of religious freedom at all,” the court observed. “It is a question of following a lawful command of a superior. In the present case, the petitioner has kept his religion above a lawful command... This clearly is an act of indiscipline.”

No court martial needed, says court

The bench also endorsed the Army’s decision not to initiate court martial proceedings, citing the sensitive nature of the issue. “The Chief of Army Staff’s satisfaction that conducting a Court Martial would be both inexpedient and impracticable appears well-founded,” the judges stated, warning that a formal trial could have triggered “unnecessary controversies detrimental to the secular fabric of the Armed Forces.”

‘Religious tones, secular roles’

The judgment acknowledged that certain regiments carry religious or regional associations and use war cries that may sound religious to outsiders. However, the court emphasized that such traditions serve secular, motivational purposes. It called on commanding officers to respect the diverse faiths of their personnel while leading by unity, not division.

“A higher and heightened responsibility is cast on Commanding Officers... by placing the cohesion of the Unit above individual religious preferences, particularly when commanding troops who they will lead in combat situations and war,” the court wrote.

By placing military cohesion above religious individuality, the court reinforced the Armed Forces’ complex balancing act between India’s pluralistic ideals and the uncompromising discipline of its defense institutions.