November 26, 2025
NEW DELHI – The Supreme Court on Tuesday affirmed the removal of Lieutenant Samuel Kamalesan from service, holding that his refusal to enter the regiment’s ‘mandir’ and gurudwara during mandatory religious parades amounted to serious indiscipline incompatible with Army life.
A Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi refused to interfere with the Delhi High Court’s order upholding the Army’s action. The High Court had earlier held that military discipline and unit cohesion must prevail in such settings, and that personal religious freedoms can be reasonably restricted under Article 33 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court echoed these principles.
During the hearing, the Bench came down strongly on the officer’s conduct. Telling his counsel, “This is nothing but gross indiscipline… he is a cantankerous man and a misfit to be in Army… what kind of message is he sending?” The Court also noted that even his pastor had counselled him to comply.
Lt. Kamalesan, a Protestant Christian, argued that idol worship is prohibited in his faith and that while he always attended the mandatory parades, he stood respectfully in the courtyard and could not be compelled to enter the sanctum or perform rituals such as puja, havan or aarti.
His counsel, senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, submitted that his client removed his shoes, wore a turban when required, and maintained complete decorum, adding that “Entry not a problem… conducting ceremonies? that cannot be forced on me… commandant said I have to hold thali etc.”
The Army, however, viewed his stance as a refusal to follow long-standing regimental tradition, especially in a combat unit comprising Rajput, Sikh and Jat troops.
CJI Kant questioned the officer’s approach, observing, “As per records it’s a sarva dharma sthal… by refusing to enter are you not hurting the religious sentiments of your soldiers… you should have led by example.”
When the counsel argued that religious freedom under Article 25 protected the officer’s stand, Justice Bagchi responded that the issue had to be seen in context: “You should respect collective faith… you are insulting the faith of your regiment… this is not an essential feature if we go by the pastor or other Christian soldiers.”
He also asked, “Where does the Christian faith bar the entering of the sanctum sanctorum of the temple?” The court further stated that the ban on entering a holy space of another religion is not an “essential practice” and therefore not protected under Article 25.
According to the Army, Kamalesan’s refusal, despite repeated counselling, amounted to non-compliance with military customs, particularly in a regiment where such rituals are seen as part of unit bonding and morale. It was argued that his refusal to participate could negatively affect cohesion within the regiment.