Courts Can’t Second-Guess Army: Delhi HC Upholds Dismissal of Christian Officer Who Refused Religious Parades
The Delhi High Court has upheld the termination of a Christian Army officer who refused to participate in regimental religious parades, observing that courts cannot second-guess the Army’s decisions, which require higher standards of discipline. The court noted, “It is for the military leadership to decide what is necessary to motivate and command troops.”
A bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur held: "In the present case, we find that the Chief of Army Staff, having considered the rank and position of the petitioner, the sensitivity of the issue, and the potential impact on the troops and the Regiment, arrived at the conclusion that the conduct of the petitioner was in violation of the essential military ethos."
The court was hearing a plea filed by the petitioner, a Christian Army officer, who the Indian Army dismissed for refusing to participate in regimental religious parades. The petitioner was commissioned in the Indian Army as a Lieutenant in the 3rd Cavalry Regiment, which comprises Sikh, Jat, and Rajput squadrons. He was posted as Troop Leader of Squadron ‘B’, comprising Sikhs.
In the present case, the petitioner, a Christian by faith, stated that his regiment maintained only a Mandir and a Gurudwara for religious needs and parades, and not a ‘Sarv Dharm Sthal’. He claimed there was no church within the premises.
The petitioner asserts that he had always accompanied his troops to the Mandir or Gurudwara for weekly religious parades and attended their religious festivals as and when required. However, he claimed that he only sought exemption from entering the innermost sanctum of the temple as a sign of respect towards his Christian faith and his troops’ religious sentiment.
The petitioner further claimed his Annual Confidential Report (ACR) for the year 2017, initiated by the Commandant, contained adverse remarks concerning his religious beliefs. He was then eventually terminated from service.
Challenging the impugned order, the petitioner has approached the High Court seeking reinstatement in the Indian Army.
On the other hand, the Indian Army contended that the petitioner refused to attend Regimental Parades despite multiple counselling sessions. The Army emphasised that troops derive motivation and pride from devotional practices, and the petitioner’s refusal affected their morale.
The Army asserted that participation in these religious activities was a professional responsibility essential for military discipline, not a religious obligation. Despite repeated counselling, the petitioner continued to refuse and sought a change in the regiment.
Thereafter, administrative termination proceedings were initiated. A show cause notice was issued after the Chief of Army Staff found that trial by Court Martial was not feasible. After exhausting all options, the termination order was passed on 3 March 2021 and implemented on 25 March 2021.
During the proceedings, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for the petitioner, argued that while he attended all religious parades, he only abstained from entering the sanctum. He submitted that the termination violated his right to religious freedom. It was also argued that proportionality was not properly considered.
Opposing the plea, ASG Chetan Sharma, appearing for the Union of India, argued that the petitioner’s refusal to participate in religious parades affected troop morale. He added that despite multiple counselling sessions, the petitioner remained unwilling to comply, which ultimately led to his termination under Rule 14.
Acknowledging that the petitioner has the right to practice his religious beliefs, the High Court, however, observed that as a Commanding Officer, he carries additional responsibilities to lead his troops in war, foster bonds, motivate personnel, and cultivate a sense of belonging among them.
Noting that the present case is not about religious freedom but disobedience of a lawful command, the court clarified that despite multiple orders from his senior officers to enter the sanctum during regimental parades, which were deemed part of his official duties, the petitioner failed to comply.
"The termination process followed proper procedures under Section 19 of the Army Act, read with Rule 14 of the Army Rules. The petitioner received adequate notice through the Show Cause Notice dated 31.01.2019, was given full opportunity to respond, and his reply was duly considered through the proper chain of command before the final decision was rendered. The procedural safeguards envisaged under Rule 14(2) of the Army Rules have been substantially complied with," the court held
Having found no grounds to interfere with the Army’s decision to terminate the petitioner, the court accordingly dismissed the petition.
Case Title: SAMUEL KAMALESAN vs UNION OF INDIA