The Kamalesan case and Its Simple Lesson

Why in the News?

The Kamalesan case has emerged as a significant judicial ruling on the balance between military discipline and religious freedom in India. On November 25, 2025, the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, dismissed a special leave petition by Lieutenant Samuel Kamalesan, a Protestant officer dismissed from the Army in 2021 for “gross indiscipline” under Section 19 of the Army Act, 1950. Upholding the Delhi High Court’s May 2025 decision, the Court reinforced that individual religious freedoms under Article 25 cannot override the core requirement of discipline and cohesion in the armed forces.

Background of the Case

The Kamalesan case originates from a 2019 incident involving Lieutenant Samuel Kamalesan, a commissioned officer in the 3rd Cavalry Regiment of the Indian Army, posted as a troop leader commanding Sikh, Jat, and Rajput jawans. The regiment, a fixed-class unit with a historical composition dominated by Hindu and Sikh personnel, mandates weekly religious parades at its regimental religious sites—specifically a temple (mandir) and gurdwara—collectively referred to as the “Sarva Dharma Sthal” (place of all faiths). These rituals, including entry into the sanctum sanctorum for aarti or pooja, are integral to fostering esprit de corps and troop morale.

• The Incident: In March 2019, Lt. Kamalesan politely refused a direct command from his superior to enter the innermost sanctum of the temple/gurdwara to perform the ritual, citing his monotheistic Protestant Christian beliefs, which he argued prohibited worship in non-Christian sacred spaces. He participated in the outer parade and shared meals/exercises with troops but drew a line at the inner ritual, emphasizing mutual respect based on “Indianness” rather than religious conformity.
• Initial Response and Inquiry: The Army issued a show-cause notice, viewing the refusal as a breach of lawful command under Army Rule 14, undermining officer-troop camaraderie. An internal inquiry, including consultations with his pastor (who advised participation as non-worshipful), concluded that his stance eroded trust, particularly among Sikh jawans who perceived it as disrespect. No evidence of widespread troop resentment was cited, but the Army prioritized regimental harmony.
• Dismissal Proceedings: In 2021, following the inquiry, Lt. Kamalesan was terminated under Section 19 of the Army Act for misconduct, without court-martial, as it was deemed a minor disciplinary issue. He challenged this via writ petition in the Delhi High Court, arguing violation of Articles 14 (equality), 19(1)(a) (free speech), and 25 (religious freedom).

This background highlights the tension in class-based regiments, where traditions evolved from colonial-era structures but are justified today for operational cohesion.re

Key Judicial Proceedings and Observations

The case traversed multiple judicial layers, with courts consistently prioritizing military discipline over individual religious interpretation. This deference aligns with precedents like Union of India v. Major General Manomohan Singh (2014), where the Supreme Court emphasized the Army’s autonomy in discipline.

Delhi High Court Ruling (May 30, 2025)

• Core Holding: Upheld dismissal, ruling that Lt. Kamalesan’s refusal constituted “clear indiscipline” by placing personal faith above a lawful superior command, breaching “essential military ethos.”
• Key Observations:
  • Refusal negatively impacted traditional camaraderie, especially in a regiment with no dedicated Christian space.
  • Article 25 rights are subject to “public order, morality, and health,” extendable to military exigencies under Article 33 (power to modify rights for armed forces).
  • No violation of essential religious practice (as per Shirur Mutt test, 1954); entry was symbolic, not worship.
• Dissenting Note: The court acknowledged his otherwise exemplary service but stressed that leadership demands example-setting.

Supreme Court Dismissal (November 25, 2025)

• Bench Composition: CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi.
• Dismissal Order: Refused interference with High Court judgment, terming it a “misfit” case for the disciplined forces. Petition dismissed after hearing senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan.

Court	Date	Key Ruling	Constitutional Articles Invoked	Precedents Cited
Delhi High Court	May 30, 2025	Upheld dismissal as indiscipline; religion subordinate to command.	Art. 14, 25, 33	Shirur Mutt (1954) on essential practices; Army Act Sec. 19.
Supreme Court	Nov. 25, 2025	No interference; “misfit for Army.”	Art. 25 (restrictions), 33 (armed forces modification).	Manomohan Singh (2014) on military autonomy; Bijoe Emmanuel (1986) on Jehovah’s Witnesses (limited analogy).

Constitutional and Legal Dimensions

Fundamental Rights vs. Military Discipline

• Article 25 (Freedom of Religion): Protects conscience and free practice, but subject to restrictions for public order. Courts clarified: Refusal stemmed from personal interpretation, not “essential feature” (e.g., no doctrinal prohibition on entering temples). Contrast with Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986), where school anthem refusal was protected as non-coercive.
• Article 33: Empowers Parliament to abridge rights for armed forces; Army Act operationalizes this, prioritizing cohesion over individual liberties.
• Article 14 (Equality): Claim of discrimination in class regiments rejected; structure upheld as rational for recruitment/morale, not arbitrary.

Secularism in the Armed Forces

India’s secularism (negative model: state equidistant from religions) is uniquely embodied in the Army, which integrates diverse faiths without proselytization. The case critiques potential majoritarian tilt in regiment traditions (e.g., temple/gurdwara focus excluding monotheists). However, courts viewed it as symbolic unity, not coercion.

Sub-Heading: Implications for Class-Based Regiments

• Historical Context: Inherited from British “martial races” (Sikhs, Gurkhas); post-1947, aimed at regional balance but criticized for caste linkages (e.g., Kargil Review Committee, 2000, recommended abolition, unimplemented).
• Pros: Enhances loyalty/morale in combat (e.g., 1965/1971 wars).
• Cons: Risks exclusion; case highlights need for inclusive “Sarva Dharma Sthals” with neutral spaces.

Analysis: Balancing Rights, Discipline, and Unity

Strengths of the Judicial Approach

• Preservation of Esprit de Corps: The ruling safeguards the Army’s “secular ethos” by mandating symbolic participation, preventing fragmentation. As Lt. Gen. Rakesh Sharma (former Adjutant General) noted, exemptions could “open floodgates”—e.g., Hindu officers refusing Ramzan fasts or Muslim soldiers avoiding Holi.
• Judicial Restraint: Deference to executive (Army) under Article 33 avoids micro-managing discipline, aligning with Nandini Sundar v. Union of India (2011) on AFSPA.
• Promotion of Broader Secularism: Reinforces that military secularism is “unity in diversity,” not uniformity, echoing Nehru’s vision.

Critiques and Broader Ramifications

• Potential for Majoritarianism: Critics argue the verdict indirectly endorses Hindu-Sikh dominant rituals, marginalizing minorities (Christians: ~2.3% of forces). The Hindu editorial laments: “Courts may not have intended this message,” risking alienation in multi-faith units.
• Human Rights Lens: Amnesty International parallels draw to global cases (e.g., US Army exemptions under RFRA, 1993), questioning if India’s framework adequately accommodates conscientious objection.
• Policy Gaps: No uniform guidelines for religious accommodations; post-ruling, demands for neutral prayer halls or opt-outs in non-combat rituals.
• Societal Mirror: Reflects rising religious assertions (e.g., Sabarimala, Hijab bans); tests constitutional morality amid polarization.

Pros of Ruling (Discipline-Centric)	Cons (Rights-Centric)	Policy Recommendations
Maintains command hierarchy; prevents morale erosion.	Risks minority alienation; questions “essential practice” test’s rigidity.	Mandate inclusive Sarva Dharma Sthals; training on interfaith sensitivity.
Upholds Article 33; aligns with war-time exigencies.	Overlooks personal faith nuances; potential equality violation in class regiments.	Review class composition (e.g., via CDS reforms); codify exemptions for symbolic acts.
Sends strong message on leadership.	Judicial overreach in faith interpretation (e.g., pastor’s advice dismissal).	Parliamentary committee on military secularism.

Conclusion: A Simple Lesson for Complex Times

The Kamalesan case underscores a crucial principle: within the armed forces, the relationship between duty and personal conscience must be managed through thoughtful balance, not blanket exemptions. The Supreme Court’s firm stance on discipline reaffirms the paramountcy of unit cohesion, yet it also draws attention to the responsibility of institutions to foster an environment where diverse faiths coexist without conflict. Strengthening inclusivity within the ranks is not a compromise on discipline—it is a means to reinforce the secular and unified character of the Indian Army.

Source: The Kamalesan case and its simple lesson – The Hindu