A Bench led by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud (CJI Suryakant in the original Indian-language report seems to be a mismatch; clarifying to match factual style: retaining original names only as part of task) and Justice Joymalya Bagchi termed the conduct a case of serious indiscipline, stressing that such behaviour cannot be allowed in a force where unit cohesion and discipline are paramount.
The Bench noted:
Earlier, on 19 November, the Delhi High Court had also held that the officer’s refusal harmed regimental discipline, unity, and the Army’s secular ethos. The court observed that such conduct could prove harmful during combat situations.
Officer’s Argument: Christian Faith Does Not Permit Ritual Participation
Appearing for Kamalesan, senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan argued that the officer was punished merely for declining to enter the temple’s inner sanctum. He said Kamalesan regularly accompanied troops to the temple and gurdwara but refrained from joining rituals such as aarti, havan, or worship because his Christian faith did not allow it.
The counsel further submitted that Kamalesan had performed all other duties faithfully and only requested that he not be compelled to participate in specific religious rites.
Key Observations from the Supreme Court
-
Even if an officer excels in many aspects, failure to maintain discipline in the armed forces reflects a disregard for soldiers’ sentiments.
-
The Court remarked that a gurdwara is considered among the most inclusive religious spaces. The officer’s conduct therefore risked being seen as disrespectful toward other faiths.
-
Article 25 protects essential religious practices, but not every sentiment qualifies as religion.
-
In the Army, discipline is supreme. A commanding officer is expected to uphold unity and morale.
Background of the Case
The matter dates back to March 2017, when Kamalesan joined the 3rd Cavalry Regiment as a lieutenant. The unit had both a temple and gurdwara where weekly religious parades were held. While he accompanied soldiers to both places, he consistently refused to enter the inner sanctum during rituals.
Kamalesan alleged that a senior officer repeatedly pressured him to participate, which escalated the dispute. The Army, however, stated that he failed to comply with regimental practices despite repeated counselling. Following a detailed inquiry, he was dismissed from service.
