Army Act: The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the dismissal of a Christian army officer who refused to enter the sanctum sanctorum of a temple. The court said that the army is a secular institution and its discipline cannot be compromised. The Supreme Court commented, “You have hurt the sentiments of your soldiers.” The court accused officer Samuel Kamleson of gross indiscipline and described him as ‘completely unfit for the army’.
Why did the army remove the Christian officer?
Samuel Kamlesan, commissioned in 2017, was posted in a Sikh squadron. According to a Bar & Bench report, he faced disciplinary proceedings for refusing to enter the sanctum sanctorum of the regiment’s Hindu temple and gurudwara during the mandatory regimental parade. Kamleson claimed that his objection was not only as a sign of respect for his Christian faith, but also out of respect for the feelings of his soldiers. So that their non-participation in the rituals does not hurt their religious sentiments. According to the Bar & Bench report, he also argued that his soldiers did not mind it, nor did it affect the strong relationship between them. However, the Army said that the officer did not change his stand even after consultation with senior officers and Christian priests.
High Court also upheld the dismissal
He was ultimately dismissed in 2021. The Army said that the officer’s objection has weakened the unity of the unit and the morale of the soldiers. In its order dated May 30, the Delhi High Court upheld Kamlesan’s dismissal and said that the officer had put his religion above the legitimate order of his superior, which was a clear act of indiscipline. It also said that under Section 41 of the Army Act, disobeying the orders of a senior officer is a crime.
What argument did the military officer give?
Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for Samuel Kamlesan, argued that his client was dismissed only on the ground that he avoided entering the sanctum sanctorum. Because it was against their faith and they objected only when they were asked to perform the puja. Sankaranarayanan further said that the officers used to go to those places where there were places of all religions. Shankaranarayanan further said, “There is only one temple or Gurudwara in this particular regimental centre. He (the officer) refused to enter the temple and said that entering the sanctum sanctorum is against my faith. I will offer flowers from outside, but will not go inside. No one else had any problem, but a senior officer initiated disciplinary action.” Sankaranarayanan said, “I cannot be forced to worship any deity. The Constitution gives this much freedom.”
Army Act and indiscipline
The Indian Army is governed by the Army Act, 1950 and the Army Rules, 1954 made thereunder. These acts define the conduct, discipline and duties of army personnel. The Army Act considers any act which disobeys any army order or disturbs military harmony as a serious indiscipline. Kamlesan’s refusal to enter the sanctum sanctorum of the temple, when it was part of the regimental activity. This was considered an act of disobedience to an order and hurting the sentiments of the soldiers. The court considered it a punishable offense under Section 41 (disobedience to superior officer while in service) and Section 63 (conduct prejudicial to service).
Regimental spirit and secularism
The Indian Army is known for its regimental traditions and unwavering unity among soldiers of different religions. The primary duty of an officer is to maintain this unity and morale. Army is a secular institution. An officer has a duty to respect the religious and cultural practices of his troops and to demonstrate unity by participating in all regimental activities, provided those activities are not illegal by law. The deliberate refusal of an officer to participate in a regimental tradition, especially on religious grounds, is contrary to the regimental spirit. The court held that this conduct makes the officer completely unsuitable for a secular and united army.
limits of constitutional freedom
Article 25 of the Indian Constitution grants religious freedom to citizens, but this freedom is subject to public order, morality and health. In the context of the army, ‘discipline and regimental harmony’ are considered essential for maintaining public order. Therefore, reasonable restrictions on religious freedom imposed by the army to maintain its discipline are constitutionally justified. The court made it clear that religious propaganda or disobedience to orders on religious grounds weakens discipline and the army has the right to stop it.
