The top court dismissed the petition of Lt Col Samuel Kamalesan, who argued his Christian faith prevented him from entering a temple sanctum.
A bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant held that refusal to obey a lawful command from superiors amounts to indiscipline, especially in a disciplined force.
The ruling emphasises that religious freedom cannot override professional obligations in the armed forces, and precedents show military discipline may limit individual faith-based exemptions.
CJI-Led Bench Upholds Dismissal Of Christian Army Officer Who Refused Temple Entry
The Supreme Court refused to reinstate a Christian Army officer dismissed for refusing to enter a temple’s inner sanctum during regimental rituals. The verdict affirmed the earlier high court decision, citing his conduct as gross indiscipline and harmful to unit cohesion.
Summary
The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a petition by an Army officer of Christian faith who had challenged his dismissal for refusing to take part in weekly regimental religious parades.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kan and Justice Joymalya Bagchi upheld the Delhi High Court’s earlier ruling, stating there was no basis to interfere with the decision, according to reports.
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, representing officer Samuel Kamalesan, argued that the disciplinary action stemmed from a single alleged instance of disobedience — his refusal to enter the inner sanctum of a temple at his posting. He noted that Kamalesan had previously participated in ceremonies at locations with “sarva dharma sthals,” but the site in question included only a temple and a gurdwara, leaving him without a neutral space to join the rituals.
“Is this sort of cantankerous conduct permissible in a disciplined force?” CJI Kant asked during the hearing.
Sankaranarayanan said the officer simply stood outside the temple because entering the sanctum “would be against his Christian faith". He added, “He is not a cantankerous man. He is a disciplined man in all other respects.”
CJI Kant said the officer’s conduct sent the wrong message to the soldiers he commanded. “What kind of message he has been sending... he should have been thrown out for this only... grossest kind of indiscipline by an army official,” CJI Kant remarked, as quoted by LiveLaw.
Published At: