The Delhi High Court upheld the dismissal of Lieutenant Samuel Kamalesan, a Christian officer terminated in 2021 for refusing to participate in religious rituals at his regiment’s temple and gurdwara.
Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur delivered the judgment on May 30, 2025, rejecting Kamalesan’s petition challenging his termination from the 3rd Cavalry Regiment without pension and gratuity. Court records show Kamalesan joined the Army on March 11, 2017, as a lieutenant in the regiment that includes Sikh, Jat, and Rajput squadrons. He served as troop leader of Squadron B’s Sikh personnel.
According to the petition, Kamalesan requested exemption from entering the temple’s innermost sanctum during religious ceremonies. He stated this would respect both his monotheistic Christian faith and his troops’ religious sentiments. The petition indicates he remained in the temple courtyard following proper protocols while observing rituals.
In June 2017, the regiment’s commandant instructed him to enter the inner shrine and participate in puja during a religious parade. The petition states Kamalesan explained his faith prevented such participation but offered to remain with troops outside the sanctum. The commandant rejected this arrangement and began disciplinary action.
The Army cancelled his Young Officers Course in January 2018 one day before departure. Court records show his Annual Confidential Report for 2017 received adverse remarks, followed by a 5/9 rating in 2018. Under a new commandant in June 2019, his rating improved to 7/9.
Authorities issued a Show Cause Notice on January 31, 2019, which Kamalesan received on March 5, 2019. The notice cited his refusal to enter what it termed the “Regiment Sarv Dharm Sthal” and absence from religious functions. After reviewing his response and providing additional opportunities, authorities issued a termination order on March 3, 2021.
The court stated: “the ethos of our Armed Forces places nation before self; and certainly, nation before religion.” The judgment noted that while regiments may bear religiously-associated names, this “does not undermine the secular ethos of the institution.” War cries may “sound religious in nature, however, they serve a purely motivational function, intended to foster solidarity and unity amongst the troops.”
The bench ruled: “the question is not of religious freedom at all; it is a question of following a lawful command of a superior.” The court found that “the petitioner has kept his religion above a lawful command from his superior. This clearly is an act of indiscipline.”
The judgment acknowledged different standards for military service. The court noted: “the standard of discipline required for the Armed Forces is different. The motivation that is to be instilled in the troops may necessitate actions beyond ordinary civilian standards.”
Regarding the decision not to hold a court martial, the court found this appropriate given the issue’s sensitivity. The judgment reasoned that “a Court Martial might have led to unnecessary controversies, which could be detrimental to the secular fabric of the Armed Forces.”
The court dismissed the petition and all pending applications, affirming military authority to prioritize discipline and unit cohesion.
