FAITH AND INDIAN ARMY

By: Ram Chander Sankhla, Advocate | Former Chief Commissioner, GST & Customs| Managing Partner, Sankhla Law associates.

By: Adv. Rahul Sankhla, Partner, Sankhla Law Associates

PRELUDE:

1. “At the outset, we salute and acknowledge the dedication of those who guard our borders day and night in adverse conditions. The ethos of our Armed Forces places nation before self; and certainly, nation before religion. Our Armed Forces comprise of personnel of all religions, castes, creeds, regions, and faiths, whose sole motto is to safeguard the country from external aggressions, and, therefore, they are united by their uniform rather than divided by their religion, caste, or region.”
2. This is how Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, through Hon’ble Mr. Justice Navin Chawla, speaking for himself and for, Hon’ble Ms. Justice Shalinder Kaur, started analysing this thought provoking and avoidable dispute between Indian Army on one hand and one of it’s former officer, in W.P.(C) 7564/2021 & CM APPL. 23679/2021, 31825/2021 filed by one, Samuel Kamalesan, then Lieutenant.

FACTS:

3. Samuel Kamalesan (in short ‘SK’), a Protestant Christian by his religious faith, which is monotheistic, prohibiting the idol worship, was commissioned as Lieutenant in Indian Army in 2017. He was unceremoniously dismissed from the Indian Army without pension and gratuity in the year 2021, without following Court Martial Procedures. He filed a Writ Petition before Delhi High Court against such dismissal and denial of Pension and gratuity. Among other, his ground of challenging the dismissal was non-acquiesce of command/suggestion of few of his senior officers and a commandant, in particular, to choose between his faith and serving the army.
4. A Show Cause Notice dated 31.01.2019 was issued to SK, which sums up the facts of the case and charges against SK. For better appreciation, same is reproduced hereinunder:

“1. WHEREAS, you were commissioned in 3CAVALRY on 11 March 2017 and reported to the Regiment on 17 April 2017 and was made Troop Leader in ‘B’ Squadron which comprises of Sikh troops. 3 CAVALRY is a Regt with troops of pure clans i.e. ‘A’ Squadron comprising of Rajputs, ‘B’ Squadron comprising of Sikhs and ‘C’ Squadron comprising of Jats.

1. 1. 2. AND WHEREAS, you have refused to enter the Regiment Sarv Dharm Sthal which comprises of Mandir, Church and Gurudwara and you have not attended any religious functions in the Regiment. On explaining the ethos of the Indian Army and its secular approach and the necessity to bond with men, you have been indifferent and resolute on your stand.
      3. AND WHEREAS, the Other Officers of the Regiment, other Christian Officers in the Station, Religious Teachers of the Regiment and Pastor of the local Church have made earnest endeavours to explain the rationale, for attending and participating in religious functions, along with the importance of such religious parades in the Indian Army. However, you have remained obstinate and refused to change your decision.
      4. AND WHEREAS, you were counselled on numerous occasions by your superior officers to show improvement in your religious prejudices and overall discipline but you are unwilling to relent.
      5. AND WHEREAS you have also failed to exhibit the desired level of motivation to learn and adopt the facets of Unit Tartib, regimental ethos and professional aspects leading to a total disconnect with your men. Such behaviour does not bode well and will be detrimental in combat situations where rapport with men can be the deciding factor between success and failure.
      6. AND WHEREAS, the case is very sensitive in nature owing to the involvement of religious beliefs, your trial by a Court Martial for your aforesaid misconduct is inexpedient and impracticable.
      7. AND WHEREAS, the above facts were placed before the Chief of the Army Staff who is of the opinion that your further retention in service has become undesirable on account of the aforesaid acts of misconduct on your part. Accordingly, your services are liable to be terminated by way of dismissal in terms of provisions contained in Army Act Section 19 read with Army Rule 14.
      8. NOW THEREFORE, in accordance with the directions of the Chief of the Army Staff, you are hereby informed on his behalf and called upon to submit in your defence, if any, in writing as to why your services should not be terminated by way of dismissal under the provisions of Army Act, 1950 read with Rule 14 of the Army Rules, 1954.
      9. Your reply to this Show Cause Notice must be submitted within a period of 30 days of receipt of this notice, failing which it shall be assumed that you have nothing to urge in your defence, and an ex-parte decision will be taken in the matter.”

SK’s VERSION:

5. Whereas, SK claimed that Regiment maintains 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. That he accompanied his troops to the Mandir/Gurudwara for the weekly religious parades and also attended the religious festivals of his troops, such as Diwali, Navratri, Ohri, Gurpurab, Holi and similar celebrations. He claimed that he only sought exemption from entering the innermost part/sanctorum of the temple when the puja/havan/aarti, etc., were taking place, not only as a sign of respect to his monotheistic Christian faith, citing a violation of the First Commandment (“You shall have no other gods before me”) but also as a sign of respect towards the sentiments of his troops so that his nonparticipation while in the inner shrine would not desecrate and offend their religious sentiments. That he would nonetheless remain present with his fellow troops in the temple courtyard, after duly taking off his shoes and belt, with clean hands, with a turban on when necessary, from where he could view the rituals in the inner shrine as an integral member of the religious parade.
6. That his above acts do not, in any manner violate the secular structure of the Indian Army or the military duties. He relied on Paragraph 332 of the Regulations for the Army (Revised Edition) 1987 (in short, ‘Regulations’), to submit that his acts were not intended to wound the religious feelings of a person or to violate the sanctity of any place held sacred. Further, the customary religious parade has no nexus to any specific professional duty/combat situation.
7. Thus, it is not a case of choosing between his faith and serving the Army.
8. That, on one occasion, his Commandant wanted him to be present in the inner shrine and participate in the Pooja. SK claimed that he respectfully explained that his monotheistic Christian faith did not permit him to do so but that he would always show solidarity with his troops by being present at the temple and in the courtyard, but outside of the inner shrine. However, after this incident he was subjected to open harassment and harsh disciplinary measures under the pretext of Regimental Grooming, such as being subjected to the ‘patti parade’, regular Guard Checks on the night guards without sufficient rest in between causing sleep deprivation, and continued verbal abuse and threats by certain superior officers at the mess table that his career would be over, and belittling and ridiculing his faith in

front of his peers.

9. That, he was denied to undertake the most basic course, namely Young Officers Course. Without taking this most basic course, he became ineligible to undertake any other professional training course to build his skills and was also denied to serve in an international UN Mission with his Regiment’s contingent in Lebanon.
10. That, his ACRs under previous Commandant was spoiled with adverse remarks but his next Commandant improved his ACR rating substantially and noted that his performance was exemplary. That, he was denied due promotions and his juniors superseded him.
11. It was SK’s claim that he was told by Senior Officers that if he acquiesced to undertake the religious rituals in the Mandir/Gurdwara, all restrictions and sanctions against him would be lifted and opportunities for promotions/courses/postings would be extended to him. He claimed that he was constantly asked by these few Senior Officers and a Commandant to choose between his faith and serving the Army.
12. That Article 33 of the Constitution of India would also not be attracted in the present case, as there is no law promulgated by the Parliament which forces the Armed Forces personnel to attend the religious ceremonies contrary to their religious beliefs and, for refusal to attend the same, discharge them from service.
13. That, he has been terminated solely on the religious grounds and not on account of any dereliction of his duties which is violative of Article 25 of the Constitution of India. That limitation of a constitutional right is permissible only to a proportionate level and having nexus to the fulfilment of a purpose bearing public importance and that the least restrictive measure is to be followed by the State.

RESPONDENT’S VERSION:

14. Whereas, Respondent claimed that the 3rd Cavalry Regiment, where the petitioner was posted, is a pure combat regiment of the Armoured Corps. That the religious functions of any Regiment of the Indian Army are called regimental parade, attendance whereof is a military duty cast upon each of its personnel irrespective of his/her personal faiths and beliefs.
15. That since joining the Regiment, the petitioner failed to attend the Regimental Parades despite multiple attempts by the Commandant and other officers to explain the importance of regimentation. The respondent claims that troops derive motivation, pride, and generate their war-cry from devotional practices to a deity, and when an officer distances himself from these practices, it adversely affects the morale of the troops, undermining regimentation, cohesion, and unity during combat. The respondent maintains that this is an essential professional responsibility and military duty of the petitioner and not a religious obligation.
16. That efforts were made through other Christian officers in the Army, and by taking the petitioner to the Pastor of the local Church, the Church of North India, Diocese of Chandigarh, by whom he was told that entering the ‘Sarv Dharm Sthal’ as part of his duties would not impinge, in any manner, on his Christian faith, however the petitioner remained undeterred.
17. Because of petitioner’s such persistent & highly detrimental conduct to the maintenance of military discipline, process for termination of his service under Section 19 of the Army Act, 1950 read with Rule 14 of the Army Rules, 1954 was initiated. Efforts were again made by the Commander and General Officer Commanding to explain to the petitioner the importance of the Religious Institution and the significant role it plays in Regimental cohesion, morale and success in operations, however, these attempts also failed.
18. Before coming to dismissal of SK, the General Officer Commanding, personally interviewed the petitioner, however, he was firm in not attending the parades conducted at Regimental Sarv Dharm Sthal and to continue standing outside the premises.
19. And, having exhausted all avenues, order dismissing the petitioner from the service were issued.
20. That Article 33 of the Constitution of India also provides that the Parliament may, by law, determine as to what extent any of the Fundamental Rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution shall apply to the members of the Armed Forces, placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mohammed Zubair Corporal No. 781467-G v. Union of India and Others, (2017) 2 SCC 115.

WHAT THE HON’BLE COURT SAID:

21. It echoed the sentiments and arguments of the Respondent. The reasoning was that while Regiments in our Armed Forces may historically bear names associated with religion or region, this does not undermine the secular ethos of the institution, or of personnel who are posted in these regiments. There are also War Cries which, to an outsider, may sound religious in nature, however, they serve a purely motivational function, intended to foster solidarity and unity amongst the troops.
22. The Hon’ble Court reasoned that The Commanding Officers are to lead by example and not by division; and by placing the cohesion of the Unit above individual religious preferences, particularly when commanding troops who they will lead in combat situations and war.
23. Recognizing the importance and uniqueness of the Armed Forces, Article 33 of the Constitution of India empowers the Parliament to determine the extent to which the Fundamental Rights stated in Part-III of the Constitution shall apply to the members of the Armed Forces. The same is reproduced for better clarity,

“33. Power of Parliament to modify the rights conferred by this Part in their application to Forces, etc.— Parliament may, by law, determine to what extent any of the rights conferred by this Part shall, in their application to—(a) the members of the Armed Forces; or

(b) the members of the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order; or

(c) persons employed in any bureau or other organisation established by the State for purposes of intelligence or counter intelligence; or    

(d) persons employed in, or in connection with, the telecommunication systems set up for the purposes of any Force, bureau or organisation referred to in clauses (a) to (c), be restricted or abrogated so as to ensure the proper discharge of their duties and the maintenance of discipline among them.”

24. The Hon’ble Court went on to say that the Supreme Court in Mohammed Zubair Corporal No. 781467-G recognised the law made thereunder and observed as under,

“9. The Air Force is a combat force, raised and maintained to secure the nation against hostile forces. The primary aim of maintaining an Air Force is to defend the nation from air operations of nations hostile to India and to advance air operations, should the security needs of the country so require…….. For the effective and thorough functioning of a large combat force, the members of the Force must bond together by a sense of espirit de corps, without distinctions of caste, creed, colour or religion…….

1. 1. 10. India is a secular nation in which every religion must be treated with equality. In the context of the Armed Forces, which comprise of men and women following a multitude of faiths the needs of secular India are accommodated by recognising right of worship and by respecting religious beliefs. Yet in a constitutional sense it cannot be overlooked that the overarching necessity of a Force which has been raised to protect the nation is to maintain discipline. That is why the Constitution in the provisions of Article 33 stipulates that Parliament may by law determine to what extent the fundamental rights conferred by Part III shall stand restricted or abrogated in relation inter alia to the members of the Armed Forces so as to ensure the proper discharge of their duties and the maintenance of discipline among them.
      11. In the Indian Air Force, the norms governing the growth of hair and retention of facial hair is governed by Regulation 425.Policy documents have also been issued from time to time. On 28-4-1980, the Air Headquarters issued a letter responding to queries made in respect of Armed Force personnel professing Islam. The letter opined that personnel professing Islam are covered by the exception under Regulation 425(b) of the Regulations and that the beard should be “of such length when covered by a fist no hair shall be visible outside”.

25. The Supreme Court in case of Viswan v. Union of India (1983) 3 SCC 40, upheld the constitutional validity of section 21 of Army Act framed under Article 33 of the Constitution of India. In Union of India v. L.D. Balam Singh, (2002) 9 SCC 73, the Supreme Court again reiterated that the extent of restrictions necessary to be imposed on any of the Fundamental Rights in their application to the Armed Forces and the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order should be guided by ensuring proper discharge of duties and the maintenance of discipline amongst the Armed Force personnel.
26. It was then held by the Delhi High Court that, the question is not of religious freedom at all; it is a question of following a lawful command of a superior. It is not disputed by the petitioner that his superiors have been calling upon him to attend the religious parades by even entering the sanctum sanctorum and perform the rituals if this would help in boosting the morale of the troops. Section 41 of the Army Act makes it an offence to disobey the order of a superior officer. Further, the petitioner has kept his religion above a lawful command from his superior. This clearly is an act of indiscipline.
27. Since, the Commandant and the other officers in the Indian Army, including the Chief of Army Staff, opined that the refusal of a Commanding Officer to participate in the religious functions and ceremonies and to refuse to even enter the sanctum sanctorum, based solely on personal religious beliefs, will undermine and act to the detriment of the above essential military ethos, The Hon’ble Court thought it fit and apt in the circumstances of the present issue, to go along with said opinions. It reasoned that it is for the Armed Forces and the military leadership to determine what actions they feel are important for its Commanding Officers to take in order to effectively motivate the troops under their command, and what may act as a demotivating factor for the Forces or to the bond and unflinching command that the Commanding Officer must yield over the troops. The Courts cannot second-guess the same.
28. It was also reasoned that in such circumstances, a Court Martial might have led to unnecessary controversies, which could be detrimental to the secular fabric of the Armed Forces. The decision to not hold a Court Martial, therefore, appears to be well thought out and within the powers conferred on the Central Government and the Chief of Army Staff under Rule 14(2) of the Army Rules.
29. SK, then, approached the Apex court but without any success, vide Supreme Court order dated 25.11.2025 in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).25838/2025, which dismissed the said SLP.

Judgments decisively favoured discipline, but raised many legal and moral questions:

30. As of today, SK remains dismissed. With dismissal comes the unpronounced punishment that such Officer will never be able to join any government service. Also, the stigma of being dismissed from Army, will remain for life long. Therefore, questions/debates, whether this dismissal was necessary, disproportionate, avoidable, unethical, non-secular, un-corroboratory etc., will be raised time and again.
31. To become Commissioned officer in Indian Army and especially in combat forces require persistent hard work, dedication, consistency and focus, besides life’s prime time investment. The Officers recruited in armed forces undergo critical and tough Trainings. It is therefore of no doubt that SK was a deserving and outstanding officer. Now, he becomes ineligible for any government job/Services, which is clearly the loss of the Nation. Of course, the individual will keep on feeling hurt and harmed.
32. In the past though, Hon’ble courts have ensured women participation in Indian Forces, which was prohibited, at one time, on the pretext that Forces must have only MEN, being of superior and war ready gender. Then, the women officers were allowed to be commissioned which were prohibited on pretexts like war preparedness and effectiveness of the forces. The Courts have been suggesting and ensuring progressive and contemporary approach. However, in this case, it has taken steps back.
33. It may not be out of context to remember, with pride and honour, the sacrifices made by Hon’ble Fifth Guru Shri Arjun Dev Ji and Hon’ble Ninth Guru, Shri Guru Tegh Bahadur Ji, in defending and standing up for RIGHT CAUSES including religious one. They made the ultimate sacrifices for right causes.

CONCLUDE:

34. Coming back to the nitty-gritty of the present Judgement, it has raised many questions, for which answers are not easy coming.

• • • Is it a case of choosing between faith and serving in the army or both could co-exist?
    • To what extent, under Article 33, fundamental right to freedom of religion under Article 25 be restricted.
    • whether participation in religious rituals a “lawful command” and mandatory, or does it cross into compelled religious practice?
    • Was termination the least restrictive measure? Alternatives (transfer to a mixed-class unit, creation of a Sarv Dharm Sthal, excusing him only from the inner sanctum) were apparently not seriously considered.
    • No specific charge was framed and substantiated as per procedures known in law; his retention was simply declared “undesirable.” In other words, can the State restrict fundamental rights based on an unsubstantiated assertion of military/law and order necessity?
    • It was claimed that his refusal harmed troop morale and unit cohesion, but no empirical evidences were produced (no affidavits from Sikh/Jat/Rajput troops, no psychological studies, no incident reports).
    • Is such broad executive discretion under Section 19 of the Army Act compatible with Article 14 (equality) and natural justice?
    • In a constitutionally secular force, does the State have a positive duty to reasonably accommodate other religious practices?
    • Which model is more sustainable in an increasingly diverse recruit base?
    • Officers voluntarily join forces, knowing discipline is paramount, but do they voluntarily consent to compelled religious practice that was, probably, not disclosed during training or commissioning?
    • Is it a case of indiscipline/insubordination, or rare display of moral courage?
    • Will this judgment deter religiously observant aspirants in Indian Forces.

35. One thing though seems certain is that, the DISMISSAL IS AVOIDABLE AND CLEARLY DISPROPOTIONATE. It is high time the Central Government may step in and take corrective actions like re-instating the officer. The Government must also think on preventive measures so that such incidents do not get repeated.

‘JAI HIND’.

DISCLAIMER:  The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any other individual, organization, employer or Firm. The information provided in this article is accurate and true to the best of the author’s knowledge, but there may be omissions, errors, or mistakes. The authors shall not be liable for any damages, losses, or injuries arising from the use of or reliance on the information presented in this article. Readers are advised to verify any information provided here and to consult with appropriate professionals for specific advice tailored to their individual circumstances.