Kuldip Singh
The Supreme Court on November 25 upheld the Delhi High Court’s May 2025 order affirming Lieutenant Samuel Kamalesan’s termination from service for refusing to enter the sanctum of his regiment’s temple and gurdwara. His unit, the 3rd Cavalry, has a distinguished and valiant history, largely comprising troops from the Sikh, Jat, and Rajput communities.
Kamalesan, a Protestant Christian officer commissioned in 2017 into the Indian Army, maintained that he never disrespected any faith, but believed that physically entering another religion’s sanctum violated the first of the Ten Commandments (viz, “You shall have no other gods before me”). The apex court observed: “Leaders have to lead by example … When a pastor, a leader of your faith, counselled you that it was alright, you should have left it at that … you cannot have your private understanding of what your religion permits … in uniform.” The Court thus held that Kamalesan’s refusal encroached upon the Army’s model of secularism, which requires all officers to participate equally in the rituals of the diverse faiths of their troops, and that his conduct constituted a breach of discipline and collective ethos.
The judgment has sparked predictable controversy. Some argue that, while discipline is indispensable to the armed forces, the dismissal violates personally held religious convictions, reduces Indian secularism to ritual uniformity, overlooks its deeper constitutional soul, and narrows the accommodative space in which all belief systems can coexist without coercion. A few have even juxtaposed this with emphatic assertions about Pakistan’s armed forces being Islamised and radicalised. The issue, however, is far more complex.
No comments:
Post a Comment