Understanding the Dismissal of Lt. Samuel Kamalesan: A Case Study

Lt. Samuel Kamalesan Dismissal Case: Background and Key Facts

In March 2021, Lieutenant Samuel Kamalesan, a Protestant Christian officer of the Indian Army's 3rd Cavalry Regiment, was dismissed for refusing to enter the inner sanctum of the regimental temple during religious parades. The dismissal was upheld by the Delhi High Court on May 30, 2025, and subsequently, the Supreme Court dismissed his appeal on November 25, 2025.

Facts of the Case

Commissioned in 2017, Lt. Kamalesan served as the Troop Leader of Squadron B, which largely comprised Sikh personnel. The regiment maintained a Mandir and Gurudwara for parades, but there was no Sarv Dharm Sthal. While he consistently attended religious parades and festivals, he refused to enter the temple's inner sanctum, citing his Christian faith that prohibits idol worship. Despite extensive counseling from senior officers and fellow Christian officers, he maintained his stance. As a result, 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

• Violation of Article 25: Kamalesan argued that forcing him to enter the inner sanctum violated his fundamental right to freedom of conscience and religion under Article 25. He referenced the Supreme Court ruling in Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986), which protects the right to abstain from practices contrary to one's faith.
• Restrictions Must Be Proportionate: He contended that he could have remained in the courtyard during rituals. He cited Modern Dental College v. State of M.P. (2016) and Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) to argue that restrictions should be proportional.
• Procedural Violations: Kamalesan claimed that his dismissal violated Rule 14(2) as it occurred without a court martial. His ACRs described him as hardworking and mature, with no complaints from subordinates.
• Lack of Evidence of Harm: He argued the Army failed to demonstrate that his refusal harmed troop morale or cohesion, noting strong bonds with his men and good professional performance.

Respondent’s Arguments (Union of India)

• Military Discipline Is Paramount: The Army asserted that regimental parades are essential for unit cohesion, morale, and discipline, emphasizing the need for uniformity in combat-oriented units.
• Article 33 Allows Restriction of Rights: They argued that Article 33 permits Parliament to restrict fundamental rights for Armed Forces personnel, citing the Army Act, 1950, and R. Viswan v. Union of India (1983) to support this.
• Refusal Was Willful Disobedience: The Army stated that Kamalesan's repeated refusal violated Section 41 of the Army Act, despite counseling efforts.
• Court Martial Was "Inexpedient and Impracticable": The Army contended that a court martial on a sensitive religious issue could risk communal tensions, granting military authorities discretion in such matters.
• Potential Threat to Unit Cohesion: They argued that selective participation could encourage others to refuse traditions, undermining discipline and military effectiveness.

Delhi High Court Judgment (2025)

The Court concluded that persistent refusal undermined military ethos and cohesion, affirming that Article 33 permits necessary restrictions for discipline and justifying the decision to bypass court martial.

Supreme Court Proceedings

A Bench led by CJI Surya Kant made pointed observations on Kamalesan's conduct, questioning its permissibility within a disciplined force and emphasizing the importance of respecting the sentiments of fellow soldiers. The Court ultimately dismissed his appeal.

Legal Principles Emerging from the Case

• Article 33 vs. Article 25: This judgment reinforces that the Armed Forces can restrict religious freedom to maintain discipline.
• Military Discipline Overrides Personal Beliefs: Lawful commands tied to regimental traditions cannot be refused on religious grounds.
• Court Martial Discretion: Military authorities may bypass court martial if it risks broader harm or unrest.
• Importance of Uniformity: Unit cohesion and collective military identity outweigh individual conscience claims.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q1. What exactly did Lt. Kamalesan refuse to do?
Answer: He refused to enter the temple's inner sanctum (garbhagriha) and participate in puja rituals, though he attended parades and remained in the courtyard.
Q2. Did he refuse all religious parades?
Answer: No. He attended all parades and festivals but objected only to idol worship rituals.
Q3. Why was no Sarv Dharm Sthal available?
Answer: The regiment historically maintained only Mandir and Gurudwara facilities.
Q4. What is Article 33?
Answer: It empowers Parliament to restrict rights of Armed Forces personnel to maintain discipline.
Q5. Why was there no court martial?
Answer: The Army deemed it impractical due to the sensitive religious nature.