Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Lt Samuel Kamalesan for Refusing Army Religious Rituals

The Supreme Court on November 25 dismissed Lieutenant Samuel Kamalesan’s special leave petition, upholding his 2021 dismissal from the Indian Army for refusing to participate in regimental religious rituals during weekly parades. The officer, who served as a troop leader in the Army’s 3rd Cavalry Regiment, argued that the practices conflicted with his Protestant Christian monotheistic faith.

A bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant refused to accept the argument, observing that Kamalesan’s conduct violated “essential military ethos.” The CJI described him as a “cantankerous man” and a “misfit,” ruling that the Army had rightly terminated his service.

The verdict has reignited debate on the fine balance between individual faith and institutional discipline within India’s armed forces—particularly whether an officer can decline participation in religious traditions.

Why the Army expects officers to join unit rituals

Despite its strictly secular operational framework, the Indian Army acknowledges religion as a cornerstone of unit identity and morale. Concepts of Naam, Namak, Nishan—honour, loyalty and regimental pride—are reinforced through longstanding customs, many of which are religious in nature.

Most units maintain places of worship—temples, mosques, gurudwaras, and churches. Wedding these traditions to operational unity, officers often adopt inclusive practices: Hindu officers fasting during Ramzan with Muslim soldiers, or Christian officers participating in aartis alongside their troops.

Military veterans say such gestures are not about personal worship but leadership psychology. Brigadier Sandeep Thapar wrote that a soldier will “lay down his life on an officer’s command only if he feels the officer is his own.”

Former Adjutant General Lt Gen Rakesh Sharma noted that by refusing participation, Kamalesan “challenged the very moorings of the Indian Army.” Allowing an exemption, he argued, would encourage similar refusals—from Hindu officers declining Muslim rituals, to Muslim officers refusing temple ceremonies.

Why the Supreme Court upheld the dismissal

The court held that the Army’s traditions are central to its cohesion, especially in units with religious diversity. The judgment stressed that discipline, unity and command trust outweigh individual exceptions when they jeopardise operational harmony.

The bench added that permitting selective opt-outs would open the door to demands similar to those already rejected in past cases—such as Indian Air Force personnel seeking to grow beards on religious grounds.

The ruling underscored that while the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, the military’s need for strict discipline and unified identity requires a different standard. In the court’s view, Kamalesan’s refusal directly threatened that structure.