Delhi HC upholds dismissal of Christian officer from Army, says ‘keeping religion over superior’s command is act of indiscipline’

The Delhi High Court has refused to set aside the dismissal of a Christian officer of the Indian Army who had abstained from attending a pooja held as part of the regimental parade. The court held that commanding officers are to lead by example, placing unit cohesion above individual religious preferences.

Samuel Kamalesan was commissioned into the Indian Army on March 11, 2017, in the rank of a lieutenant in the 3rd Cavalry Regiment, which comprises three squadrons of Sikh, Jat, and Rajput personnel. He was made the troop leader of Squadron B, which comprises Sikh personnel.

It was his case that his regiment maintained only a mandir and a gurudwara for its religious needs and parades, and not a “sarv dharm sthal‟ (all-religion site), which would serve people of all faiths. He also highlighted that the term “sarv dharm sthal” is not used in the regiment, which otherwise refers to the weekly religious parades as “mandir gurudwara parade”. He also said there was no church on the premises.
In its May 30 order, the court also held that keeping religion above a lawful command from a superior was “clearly an act of discipline”.

In June 2017, after he respectfully refused the regiment’s commandant’s instruction to enter the inner sanctum sanctorum and participate in the pooja during one of the weekly religious parades, as a mark of respect, as well as the fact that his monotheistic protestant Christian faith did not permit him to do so, he claims to have started facing “extreme disciplinary action”, including being passed over for promotions and training courses, and ultimately his dismissal in 2021.

Kamlesan claimed that his Annual Confidential Report (ACR) for 2017 and 2018 initiated by the regiment commandant “contained adverse remarks over his religious beliefs”. To establish this argument, Kamalesan also pointed out that with a change in the commandant in June 2019, his ACR improved.
In January 2019, disciplinary action against him was initiated with the issuance of a showcause notice for abstaining from pooja and he was finally terminated on March 3, 2021.

The Centre argued that Kamalesan had failed to attend the regimental parades despite multiple attempts by the commandant and other officers to explain the importance of regimentation. It claimed 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 Centre had stressed that “this is an essential professional responsibility and military duty of the petitioner and not a religious obligation.”

A division bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur, while upholding the dismissal, reasoned in its order, “…while there can be no denial of the fact that the petitioner has the right to practice his religious beliefs, however, at the same time, being the Commanding Officer of his troops, he carries additional responsibilities as he has to not only lead them in war but also has to foster bonds, motivate personnel, and cultivate a sense of belonging in the troops…. In the present case, the question is not of religious freedom at all; it is a question of following a lawful command of a superior…In the present case, the petitioner has kept his religion above a lawful command from his superior. This clearly is an act of indiscipline.”

Noting that the standard of discipline required for the armed forces is different, the bench observed, “The motivation that is to be instilled in the troops may necessitate actions beyond ordinary civilian standards…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.”

“The petitioner’s refusal to fully participate in weekly Regimental religious parades, despite counseling at multiple levels of command and multiple opportunities being given to him for compliance, demonstrates an unwillingness to adapt to the requirements of military service and the Armed Forces…While we recognize the importance of religious freedom, the petitioner’s position as a Commanding Officer required him to prioritize unit cohesion and the morale of his troops. His persistent refusal to fully participate in weekly regimental religious parades, despite extensive counseling and opportunities for compliance, justified the action taken by the respondent,” the court held.

Upholding the Army’s decision to not conduct a court martial before his dismissal from service, the bench held, “As the religious sentiments and the morale of the troops were in question, the same made a formal Court Martial proceedings unsuitable for resolution. Therefore, in the specific context of military discipline and the unique circumstances of the present case involving religious beliefs and regimental cohesion, the Chief of Army Staff’s satisfaction that conducting a Court Martial would be both inexpedient and impracticable, given the sensitive nature of the religious issue, appears well-founded..We find 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 order further records the bench’s observation 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…A higher and heightened responsibility is cast on Commanding Officers to ensure that troops under their command are provided with facilities, when required, to observe their respective religious practices. 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.”

This article was originally published on https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/delhi/delhi-hc-army-religion-indiscipline-10041622/