Key Points
A bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant rejected a Christian officer’s plea against dismissal from the Indian Army, calling his actions “the grossest kind of indiscipline.”
The officer had refused to enter the innermost sanctum of a temple, saying it violated his faith.
The court argued that the officer had put his faith above the command of a superior, calling him a 'misfit' for the army.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday, 25 November 2025, upheld the dismissal of an army soldier over refusal to enter a religious site during regimental activity, citing indiscipline. The Supreme Court held that Kamalesan had placed religion over the command of a superior, which amounts to insubordination.
A bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant declined to interfere with a Delhi High Court order that upheld the dismissal of Lieutenant Samuel Kamalesan for refusing a lawful command to enter the regimental Sarva Dharma Sthal. The court described his conduct as indiscipline and ruled he was not fit for the Army. The judgement was delivered on 25 November 2025, a day after CJI Surya Kant assumed office.
The bench heard the officer’s challenge at length, saying, “We see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment.” CJI Kant asked whether such conduct could be tolerated in a disciplined force and said the officer’s actions risked insulting soldiers under his command.
Justice Kant told counsel for the petitioner that an officer who set himself above lawful commands was not acceptable in the Army. Justice Joymala Bagchi asked whether a believer’s private interpretation could override the advice of a pastor and the collective view of other Christian officers. The bench pointed out that other Christian officers had said there was no difficulty in entering the sanctum.
Kamalesan, commissioned in 2017, was attached to a Sikh squadron. He told the courts that he did not object to entering places of worship generally, but refused to enter the sanctum sanctorum and perform rituals because, he said, that would violate his faith. His counsel argued the Constitution protects religious freedom and that the officer’s objection was limited to participating in ritual acts inside the sanctum.
The bench rejected that narrow reading. It observed that the pastor who advised Kamalesan said entering the sanctum did not breach the essential features of his faith. “If the pastor, the head of your faith, says it does not affect the essential features of your faith, will the personal understanding of the believer be unique,” Justice Bagchi asked.
The court repeatedly returned to the importance of leadership and unit cohesion in the armed forces. “You are the group leader,” Chief Justice Kant told the officer. “In your team there are Sikh soldiers… Is this not insulting your own soldiers?” The bench said that an officer must lead by example and not take positions that alienate subordinates.
The ruling also noted that refusing a lawful command is a serious breach of military discipline. The court refused to reduce the penalty and dismissed the special leave petition.
The Delhi High Court in May had earlier upheld the termination. It said keeping religion above a lawful command was “clearly an act of indiscipline”. That order removed the officer from service without pension or gratuity. The officer had argued the order was harsh; the Supreme Court did not accept that submission.
With the Supreme Court dismissal, the High Court order stands and the officer’s termination remains in force. The judgment reinforces the principle that military discipline and collective unit requirements can, in certain circumstances, limit the scope of individual religious claims when those claims conflict with lawful orders. [Rh]
Suggested Reading:
