The case involved a Commanding Officer, commissioned in 2017, who served in a regiment comprising people of various religions. He refused to take part in the weekly religious parades and temple rituals that were part of regimental tradition
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has upheld the dismissal of an Indian Army officer who refused to participate in weekly religious parades conducted by his regiment, citing his Christian faith.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Slams Army Officer: “Back Pain? Then Even Judges Would Be on Leave!”
A division bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur ruled that the armed forces are a secular and disciplined institution, where unity is based on shared service and identity as soldiers—not on religion, caste, or region.
The Court firmly stated: “The Indian Armed Forces are composed of personnel from diverse religious backgrounds, but their primary duty is to safeguard the nation.”
It added that “military unity is forged through service and uniform rather than religious, caste, or regional distinctions.”
The case involved a Commanding Officer, commissioned in 2017, who served in a regiment comprising people of various religions. He refused to take part in the weekly religious parades and temple rituals that were part of regimental tradition.
He also stated that the unit did not have a common prayer area or ‘Sarv Dharm Sthal’ for personnel of all faiths.
Despite multiple counselling sessions by his superiors, the officer continued to defy orders, citing religious grounds. This persistent disobedience led to his termination from service without pension or gratuity. The officer then approached the court, asking for reinstatement.
The Army responded that his actions had seriously affected the morale and unity of the unit. They stressed that while religious freedom is respected in the forces, collective discipline and participation in traditional activities are essential to build camaraderie.
Supporting this view, the Court remarked that “Commanding Officers must lead by example, prioritising collective unity over individual religious preferences, especially in combat and warfare scenarios.”
The Court went on to say that “the armed forces respect the religious beliefs of their personnel, as outlined in paragraph 332 of military regulations, which mandates that religious customs and prejudices be honoured.”
The judgment also clarified that although some regiments carry religious or regional names and use battle cries that may sound religious, these do not compromise the secular foundation of the armed forces. These elements are seen as motivational tools, not expressions of religious faith.
“War cries–often perceived as religious–are purely motivational, designed to foster unity and solidarity among troops,” the Court explained.
CASE TITLE: SAMUEL KAMALESAN v. UNION OF INDIA
View Order
