New Delhi: The Supreme Court, on Tuesday, dismissed a petition filed by a Christian officer against his dismissal from the Indian Army over refusal to participate in weekly regimental religious parades.
The bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi refused to interfere with the order of the Delhi High Court, upholding his dismissal from service.
Samuel Kamalesan’s counsel told the Court that his client was dismissed only for one infraction, which was his refusal to enter the innermost sanctum sanctorum of a temple at the place of his posting. The petitioner used to participate in places where there were “sarva dharma sthals”, the lawyer added.
“Is this sort of cantankerous conduct permissible in a disciplined force?” Justice Kant asked.
The petitioner submitted that there was no “Sarva Dharma Sthal” in the place where he was posted. There was only a gurudwara and a temple in that place.
The lawyer further submitted that the petitioner stood outside the temple, and refrained from entering the sanctum sanctorum since he was a follower of a monotheistic faith, and would be against his Christian faith.
“He is not a cantankerous man. He is a disciplined man in all other respects,” he said.
Chief Justice Kant was not impressed. “What kind of message he has been sending…he should have been thrown out for this only…grossest kind of indiscipline by an army official,” he observed.
When the lawyer said that a person does not lose his fundamental right to religion guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution just because he joined the armed forces, Justice Bagchi pointed out that a pastor had opined that entering the sanctum would not violate the tenets of Christianity.
The senior counsel then claimed that the pastor’s statement was in the context of a Sarva Dharma Sthal and not a temple.
CJI Kant then noted that the place had a Gurudwara as well, since there were Sikh soldiers in the regiment.
“Gurudwara is one of the most secular places. The manner in which he is behaving, is he not insulting the other religions? Religious ego such high that he does not care about others?” he observed.
When CJI Kant said that he was not required to perform any religious rituals, the lawyer said that as a troop leader, he would be required to lead the rituals as well.
The senior counsel then said that the petitioner is ready to undertake to enter the sanctum sanatorium, but added that no rituals should be forced upon him. He also contended that the issue was created by only one superior officer.
“His commandant forced him. He insisted. This one man repeatedly insists that I must. I said I will not enter only when that kind of religious ceremony takes place. The impugned judgment is on disobeying of superior’s command. They quote S.41. Entry has never been a problem, conducting the ceremony can’t be forced on me. Just see the law under which I am terminated. Once this Commandant moved, my ACR went back to being okay,” the senior lawyer said.
He added that the petitioner raised objections only when he was asked to carry out the worship.
“I cannot be forced to worship a deity. Constitution permits that much freedom,” he said.
CJI Kant then pointed out that the petitioner had even refused to enter the ‘sarva dharma sthal’ by saying that there was also a gurudwara and a temple there. CJI Kant further said that the pastor of the local church also opined that entering the ‘sarva dharma sthal’ would not impinge on his faith. In this context, the CJI observed that the petitioner had also refused to enter the ‘sarva dharma sthal’.
Justice Bagchi said that the opinion of the pastor is the factor which distinguishes his case.
“Article 25 is protection for essential religious features, not every religious sentiment…you have to respect the collective faith of the majority that you are commanding…where in Christian faith is entering the temple or another religious place barred?” Justice Bagchi asked.
At this, the senior counsel submitted: “The first commandment- thou shall not worship another god.”
“Leaders have to lead by example. You are insulting your troops,” CJI Kant said.
“When a pastor counselled you, you leave it at that. You can’t have your private understanding of what your religion permits. That too in uniform,” Justice Bagchi added.
When the petitioner’s counsel made a request for a reduction of the penalty, on the ground of proportionality, saying that he has otherwise an unblemished service, the bench declined this prayer, observing that the petitioner’s conduct cannot be condoned in any manner.
“You may be outstanding in 100 things but…Indian army is known for its secular approach. When you cannot maintain discipline there…You have failed to respect the sentiments of your own soldiers,” CJI Kant said.
When the bench was about to dictate the order of dismissal, the senior counsel said, “this will send a wrong message.”
“This will send a strong message,” CJI Kant retorted, dismissing the matter.
Kamalesan was commissioned in the Indian Army in March 2017 in the rank of a Lieutenant in the 3rd Cavalry Regiment, which comprises of 3 squadrons of Sikh, Jat, and Rajput personnel. He was made the Troop Leader of Squadron B which comprised of Sikh personnel.
As per Kamalesan, his regiment maintained only a Mandir and a Gurudwara for its religious needs and parades, and not a Sarv Dharm Sthal which would serve persons of all faiths. He claimed before the High Court that there was no church in the premises. It was further averred that he accompanied his troops to the Mandir and Gurudwara for the weekly religious parades and festivals, but sought exemption from entering the innermost part or sanctorum of the temple when the puja or havan or aarti were taking place.
On the other hand, the respondent argued that since joining the regiment, Kamalesan failed to attend the regimental parades despite multiple attempts by the Commandant and other officers to explain the importance of regimentation to him.
It was submitted that all possible options were exhausted to make Kamalesan understand and conform his conduct to military discipline and Regimental Tarteeb, after which the Chief of Army Staff examined the complete records and was satisfied that his further retention in service has become undesirable on account of his misconduct.
