Refusal To Obey Lawful Command In The Name Of Religion Is Indiscipline: Delhi High Court Upholds Army Officer's Dismissal Over Non-Participation In Regimental Rituals

“Religious Freedom Exists, But Commanding Officer Cannot Prioritize Personal Beliefs Over Military Cohesion” – Delhi High Court delivered a significant judgment, where it upheld the dismissal of a commissioned officer from the Indian Army for his refusal to participate fully in regimental religious parades, citing his personal Christian beliefs. The Court held that the officer’s actions amounted to willful disobedience of a lawful command under Section 41 of the Army Act, 1950, and that military discipline and unit cohesion override individual religious preferences in such contexts, particularly under the constitutional framework of Article 33.

The petitioner, Lt. Samuel Kamalesan, a Protestant Christian, was commissioned into the Indian Army on March 11, 2017, and assigned to the 3rd Cavalry Regiment, which consists of three squadrons categorized by religious identities: Sikh, Rajput, and Jat. He was appointed Troop Leader of 'B' Squadron (Sikh personnel).

Kamalesan claimed that while he participated in the weekly religious parades and remained present in the temple/gurudwara courtyard, he abstained from entering the sanctum sanctorum during rituals such as aarti and puja, as they were contrary to his monotheistic faith, which prohibits idol worship. He emphasized that this abstention was out of both religious conviction and respect for the sentiments of his troops.

Despite this, he alleged that he was subjected to discriminatory treatment, denied promotions, and was ultimately dismissed through an administrative order under Section 19 of the Army Act and Rule 14 of the Army Rules, 1954, without a court-martial.

Religious Freedom vs. Military Discipline – Article 25 and Article 33

The Court held that Article 25 (freedom of religion) is subject to the restrictions under Article 33, which empowers Parliament to curtail fundamental rights for members of the armed forces to maintain discipline.

“The Armed Forces comprise of personnel of all religions… they are united by their uniform rather than divided by religion, caste, or region.” [Para 56]

Citing the Supreme Court’s judgment in Mohammed Zubair v. Union of India, (2017) 2 SCC 115, the Bench reiterated:

“The overarching necessity of a Force which has been raised to protect the nation is to maintain discipline... Uniformity among personnel, not only in their appearance but also in showing their respect for the religion of all, is quintessential.” [Para 63]

Refusal to Obey Lawful Command – Section 41 of the Army Act

The Court found that the petitioner had disobeyed a lawful order to fully participate in regimental religious parades, including entering the sanctum sanctorum.

“In the present case, the petitioner has kept his religion above a lawful command from his superior. This clearly is an act of indiscipline.” [Para 68]

Section 41 of the Army Act was invoked to characterize this as willful disobedience, which is a punishable offence and ground for dismissal.

Court Martial Not Mandatory – Rule 14 of the Army Rules

The Court noted that the Army had invoked Rule 14(2), citing that a court martial was “inexpedient and impracticable” due to the sensitive religious nature of the issue.

“A Court Martial might have led to unnecessary controversies, which could be detrimental to the secular fabric of the Armed Forces.” [Para 82]

The Bench observed that the procedure under Rule 14 was followed meticulously:

• A Show Cause Notice dated 31.01.2019 was issued.

• The petitioner’s reply was considered.

• He was personally interviewed by the General Officer Commanding, 2 Corps.

• The decision was finalized only after multiple opportunities were provided to the petitioner.

Citing Union of India v. Harjeet Singh Sandhu, (2001) 5 SCC 593, the Court held:

“Power under Section 19 read with Rule 14 is an independent power that can be exercised when the further retention of the officer is found undesirable.” [Para 82]

Judicial Review and Scope of Interference

The Court emphasized that civilian standards cannot be applied to military decisions involving discipline and morale.

“To a civilian, this may appear harsh… however, the standard of discipline required for the Armed Forces is different... The Courts cannot second-guess the same.” [Para 70]

Allegations of Religious Discrimination and ACR Tampering

While acknowledging the petitioner’s grievance regarding adverse Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs), the Court found no substantiated evidence to support the allegation of tampering or mala fides.

“Even assuming that there were irregularities in the earlier ACRs... the same would not negate the substantive issue of continued refusal to participate in religious parades.” [Para 83]

• The Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur held that the Army's administrative action was both legally sustainable and procedurally sound.

• The petition was dismissed, and the termination order dated 03.03.2021 upheld.

• The Court reiterated that discipline, cohesion, and esprit de corps are paramount in military service, and personal beliefs cannot interfere with these institutional values.

The Delhi High Court's ruling provides a decisive affirmation of the legal framework that allows reasonable restrictions on fundamental rights for military personnel under Article 33 of the Constitution. It underscores the non-negotiable nature of military discipline, especially in matters affecting unit morale and command structure.
While acknowledging the petitioner’s religious identity, the Court concluded that individual faith cannot override lawful military directives, particularly for officers entrusted with leadership roles in the armed forces.

Date of Decision: May 30, 2025