Lieutenant Samuel Kamalesan: A Case Study on Religious Freedom vs. Military Discipline

Lieutenant Samuel Kamalesan Case: Religious Freedom vs Military Discipline

Lieutenant Samuel Kamalesan, a Protestant Christian officer in the Indian Army’s 3rd Cavalry Regiment, was dismissed in March 2021 for refusing to enter the inner sanctum of the regiment’s temple and participate in puja rituals during mandatory religious parades. The Delhi High Court upheld his dismissal on May 30, 2025, while the Supreme Court dismissed his appeal on November 25, 2025.

Facts of the Case

Kamalesan was commissioned in March 2017 and served as Troop Leader of Squadron B, which comprised Sikh personnel. The regiment maintained only a Mandir and Gurudwara for religious needs, lacking a Sarv Dharm Sthal (common prayer hall for all faiths). While he accompanied his troops to parades and festivals, he refused to enter the inner sanctum, citing his Christian faith's prohibition against idol worship, and requested to remain in the courtyard. Despite counseling from the Commandant, other Christian officers, a local pastor, and senior officers at various levels, he maintained his refusal. He was dismissed under Section 19 of the Army Act and Rule 14 of the Army Rules, without court martial, pension, or gratuity.

Petitioner’s Arguments

• Constitutional Rights (Article 25): Article 25 safeguards freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practice, and propagate religion. Kamalesan argued that entering the inner sanctum violated his Protestant Christian faith, referencing the case of Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986).
• Proportionality of Restrictions: He claimed any limitations on constitutional rights must be proportionate and minimally restrictive. The Army could have accommodated him by allowing him to remain in the courtyard, citing Modern Dental College v. State of M.P. (2016) and Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020).
• Procedural Violations: Kamalesan argued that being dismissed without a court martial violated Rule 14(2) of the Army Rules. He maintained that there was no evidence of harm to morale or cohesion, and his performance was highly rated in Annual Confidential Reports.
• Lack of Evidence: The Army failed to provide empirical proof that his actions demoralized the troops. His relationship with the soldiers was described as strong, and he maintained discipline and professional performance.

Respondent’s Arguments

• Military Discipline: Regimental parades are military duties essential for camaraderie, unit cohesion, and morale. Armed Forces require higher discipline standards than civilian institutions.
• Constitutional Framework (Article 33): Article 33 empowers Parliament to restrict fundamental rights for Armed Forces personnel. The Army Act, 1950, enacted under Article 33, permits such restrictions. R. Viswan v. Union of India (1983) upheld these provisions.
• Precedent and Nature of Refusal: Previous cases have shown that personnel cannot prioritize personal religious beliefs over service unity. Kamalesan repeatedly refused lawful commands despite counseling. Section 41 of the Army Act penalizes willful defiance.
• Court Martial Decision: A court martial was deemed “inexpedient and impracticable” due to sensitive religious issues that could cause communal tensions. Union of India v. Harjeet Singh Sandhu (2001) allows military discretion in such matters.
• Unit Cohesion: His refusal undermined essential military ethos. Military effectiveness relies on uniformity in ceremonial duties, and selective participation could weaken discipline.

Judicial Outcomes

Delhi High Court Judgment (2025)

The bench, comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur, observed that Kamalesan’s persistent refusal undermined unit cohesion and morale. They held that Article 33 permits restrictions on Armed Forces personnel to ensure discipline, justifying the decision to bypass court martial. The petition was dismissed, and termination was upheld.

Supreme Court Hearing (2025)

The Supreme Court, led by CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, criticized Kamalesan’s conduct, emphasizing the need to respect soldiers’ sentiments and prioritizing military discipline over individual religious objections.

Legal Principles Established

• Article 33 and Military Discipline: Parliament may restrict fundamental rights for Armed Forces personnel, with courts deferring to military judgments on discipline.
• Religious Freedom in Armed Forces: Article 25 rights are not absolute for military personnel; lawful commands take precedence during official duties.
• Court Martial Discretion: Military authorities can bypass court martial if it is “inexpedient or impracticable,” especially when sensitive matters may cause broader harm.
• Unit Cohesion vs Individual Conscience: Military effectiveness and morale are paramount; selective participation in regimental traditions undermines discipline.

FAQs

• What did Lt. Kamalesan refuse to do? He refused to enter the innermost sanctum and participate in puja rituals, willing to remain in the courtyard instead.
• Did he refuse all religious parades? No, he attended weekly parades and festivals but objected only to inner sanctum rituals.
• Why was there no Sarv Dharm Sthal? The regiment comprised Sikh, Jat, and Rajput squadrons, maintaining only a Mandir and Gurudwara without a dedicated prayer hall for Christian officers.
• What is Article 33? It empowers Parliament to restrict fundamental rights for Armed Forces personnel to ensure proper duties and discipline.
• What is Article 25? Article 25 guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to practice religion, subject to public order, morality, and health.
• Why was a court martial not held?