WHEN THE COURT ENTERED THE SANCTUM AND THE CONSTITUTION ALONG WITH MORALITY STAYED OUTSIDE

Author- Nishanth Reddy

Law Student at Jindal Global Law School

The Supreme Court’s recent decision to uphold the dismissal of Lieutenant Samuel Kamalesan and the blistering remarks by the Supreme Court bench that the officer displayed “religious ego,” “gross indiscipline,” and should have been “thrown out for this only” marks a troubling moment for the secular ethos that have been imbedded in our constitution through the preamble and the basic secular nature and structure of this nation.

Background

Lieutenant Samuel Kamalesan, a Christian officer commissioned into the 3rd Cavalry Regiment in March 2017, served as Troop Leader of a Sikh squadron. The regiment maintained only a Mandir and Gurudwara for its weekly religious parades and did not have a Sarva Dharma Sthal. Kamalesan regularly attended all weekly religious parades and festivals with his troops, but sought exemption from entering the innermost sanctum of the temple or gurudwara during ritual worship (such as aarti, havan, or idol-prayer), citing his monotheistic Christian faith and concern that his non-participation inside the sanctum might offend his troops’ sentiments. He would stand respectfully in the courtyard, having removed shoes and complied with all decorum.

In June 2017, his Commandant (Commandant – 1) directed him to enter the sanctum and participate in rituals. When he (Samuel) declined and reiterated his limited conscience-based request, he was subjected to continuous adverse treatment, including multiple disciplinary check parades, tampering of ACRs, cancellation of the Young Officers Course, denial of career opportunities, and hostile remarks about his faith. Despite repeated representations, he continued facing pressure to participate fully in the rituals or “choose between his faith and the Army.” In January 2019, he received a Show Cause Notice under Rule 14 of the Army Rules, 1954, alleging refusal to attend religious parades and failure to conform to regimental ethos.

On 3 March 2021, the Army dismissed him from service without pension or gratuity, holding that his refusal to enter the sanctum was “gross indiscipline” and harmful to morale. His challenge before the Delhi High Court was dismissed, and the High Court upheld the dismissal. The Supreme Court bench, led by the Honourable Chief Justice of India also refused to interfere and upheld the decision given by the Delhi High Court judgement.

Lawful Command

In the Delhi High Court Judgement, the bench very proudly mentions, “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.” The command of the superior was to enter the inner shrine and participate in the pooja. The commandant who was the ‘superior’ refused his request from being exempted and as a consequence started taking extreme disciplinary action against him. An important question that one must ask is how is this command a ‘lawful’ command? Asking a citizen of this secular nation who practices monotheistic Christian faith to perform pooja in the inner shrine of a Hindu temple is far from being a lawful command. If not having respect towards one’s religious beliefs and commanding them to perform the ceremonies of another religion which is outside their duty can be concluded as a lawful command, we might want to reconsider the kind of precedents we are setting for the future of this nation. Would the judgement have been similar if a commandant who follows Islam religion orders his subordinate who practises Hinduism to consume beef? Would that also be considered as a ‘lawful command’?

 Further the bench also mentions that the petitioner has kept his religion above a lawful command from his superior and thus it is an act of indiscipline. While respecting other religious beliefs/sentiments is a lawful duty in the army, it cannot be a professional duty of the petitioner to adopt the religious belief of his troops or to perform their religious rituals. Customary religious parade has no nexus to any specific professional duty/combat situation. Performing these rituals is nowhere close to being a work in the course of the duty as the Lieutenant in the Indian Army, in such a scenario how he be held liable for disobeying with his superior where the ’command’ is inherently immoral.

The High Court’s reasoning becomes even more disturbing if examined in light of the very regulation it relied upon.

Paragraph 332 of the Regulations

The Delhi High court refers to Paragraph 332 of the Army Regulations which is “Observance of Religious Customs “ essentially stating that religious customs and prejudices will be respected and that officers will take special care that none of their acts or of their subordinates wounds the religious feelings of a person or violates the sanctity of any place held sacred. Now any reasonable person after reading this regulation being cited in the judgement would assume that the court is referring to the actions of the commandant – 1 who has commanded the applicant to perform pooja in the inner sanctum of the temple. Unfortunately, the Delhi High Court uses the same to attack the applicant further as he has apparently ‘hurt the feelings’ of his troops from the regiment by not performing the pooja and hurting there religious sentiments.

Morale of the Troops as a Shield

Multiple times in the judgement and in the arguments put forward by the Respondents they mention that the morale of the troops in the regiment was low because of the behaviour of Lieutenant Samuel and the High Court also believes the same but it is quite surprising as to why then did the new commandant who has replaced the first commandant (Commandant – 1) has mentioned that, “men find him amiable and enjoy being in his company” about the Lieutenant. This also resonates the case of the applicant that he accompanied his troops to the Mandir/Gurudwara for the weekly religious parades and also attended the religious festivals of his troops. He only sought exemption from entering the innermost part/sanctorum of the temple when the puja/havan/aarti be taking place. This is in line not only as a sign of respect to this monotheistic Christian faith but also as a sign of respect towards the sentiments of his troops so that his non participation while in the inner shrine would not desecrate and offend their religious sentiments. The Lieutenant also claims that his troops took no offence to this and it did not affect his strong bond with them. So it is quite surprising as to why are all these relevant facts being ignored during the decision process of this case.

The Supreme Court Order

The most problematic part out of this entire situation is the Supreme Court’s Order where Hon’ble CJI Kant mentioned, “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?” Very ironic that these statements are being used for the actions of the Lieutenant but not for the actions of the then Commandant of the regiment. How did the Supreme Court bench not realise that if anyone’s religion is being insulted, if anyone’s freedom is being violated it is indeed the lieutenant’s but not of anyone else’.

Reliance on Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1987)

This case back in 1987 solidified the secular ethos enshrined in the Constitution. Briefly, this case is about three children belonging to the Jehovah’s witnesses sect who refused to sing the national anthem during school assembly citing their religious beliefs. The Supreme Court in this judgement decided in favour of the children and held that, forcing genuinely religious children to sing something contrary to their faith would violate their fundamental right to freedom of conscience. It further held that, standing respectfully during the national anthem adequately demonstrated respect for the nation and did not constitute any insubordination. In this the court placed heavy reliance on the fact that children’s refusal to sing was not our of disrespect for the national anthem but stemmed from their genuine religious belief that their faith prohibited them.

This judgement established the judiciary’s role in safeguarding fundamental rights against unwarranted state action and reinforced the secular principles of the Indian Constitution.

Conclusion

It is high time, we as a society start thinking where are we heading as a society in the first place and why is the body which is supposed to protect our basic fundamental rights does not seem to care about the same. How is it happening that a citizen who was at the rank of a Lieutenant in the Indian Army being forced to worship a deity by his commandant and the same command is being termed as ‘lawful’ and the consequence of him not hurting his own religious sentiments was his termination from service without following the prescribed procedure and the Courts refused to intervene. The Judiciary is supposed to and is vested with the duty to recognise and protect the religious autonomy of individuals and minority groups. The vehemency with which the feelings or sentiments of the applicant have been rejected by the Hon’ble Supreme Court indeed sends out a wrong message.

Note - The information contained in this blog is for general information purposes only. We endeavour to keep all the information up to date and try our level best to avoid any misinformation or any kind of objectionable content. If you found any misinformation or objectionable contents in this website please report us at editors.jilw@gmail.com