The Supreme Court on Tuesday took a dim view of a Christian Army officer's refusal to participate in religious rituals at his regiment's temple and gurdwara [Samuel Kamalesan v. Union of India]..A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymala Bagchi asked whether the refusal did not amount to hurting the religious feelings of the soldiers subordinate to him."If this is the attitude of an Army officer, then what to say!," CJI Kant remarked as it upheld the dismissal of Lieutenant Samuel Kamalesan..Commissioned in 2017, Lt Kamalesan, who was assigned to the Sikh squadron, faced disciplinary proceedings for refusing to enter the inner sanctum of religious structures during mandatory regimental parades. He claimed that this was not only as a sign of respect to his Christian faith but also as a sign of respect towards the sentiments of his troops so that his non-participation in rituals in the inner shrine would not offend their religious sentiments. The Army stated that despite assurances from commanding officers and consultations with Christian clergy suggesting no conflict, he refused to change his stand. He was thus terminated in 2021. According to the Army, the officer’s refusal undermined unit cohesion and troop morale.In May this year, the Delhi High Court had upheld his termination, observing that as a Commanding Officer of his troops, he carried additional responsibilities and that the question in the case was not of religious freedom but of following a lawful command of a superior. The decision was then challenged before the Supreme Court..During the hearing today, CJI Kant remarked that the officer was completely "misfit" for the Army. "Army [is] completely secular in approach. You may do well elsewhere.. any constitutional provision with a grey area, we will look into it. You are guilty of violating ... [Army Rules]. You have hurt the feelings of the soldiers," the Court said.In response, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, representing Kamalesan, submitted,"What is secular when you have Jat regiment, Rajput regiment etc based on castes etc?"However, the Court was unconvinced with the submission. It said that he had not even listened to the Pastor who had said that entering the 'Sarv Dharm Sthal' as part of his duties would not go against his Christian faith.Sankaranarayanan said such ceremonies could not have been forced on him. At this, CJI Kant said,"If there is 'Sarv Dharm Sthal', how does it violate the rights? Sankaranarayanan disputed the fact that there was a 'Sarv Dharm Sthal'. His argument before the High Court was that the regiment maintained only a Mandir and a Gurudwara.CJI Kant was unconvinced."Can there be any answer to your apprehension? You refuse to go just because there is temple and Gurdwara there. Does it not amount to hurting the feelings of your soldiers?" Justice Kant said..Justice Bagchi said that the officer seemed to have personally interpreted his faith as not permitting him to go inside the place."But this is not an essential feature if we go by the Pastor or other christian soldiers. So breach of Article 25 is when breach of essential features [is there] but not breach of each and every sentiment. You have to respect the collective faith of the majority of the contingent you are commanding. Where in Christian faith bars the entering of sanctum sanctorum of temple?" Justice Bagchi asked.The senior counsel said it was in the first Commandment of the Bible - "You shall have no other gods before me". However, the Court disagreed."That is the faith aspect only. Pastor has also counselled you. You cannot have your own private understanding of what your religion says that too when in uniform," it said..The Court concluded that there was no ground to interfere with the dismissal and rejected the petition..Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.
