Today, On 25th November, The Supreme Court heard whether religious freedom can be restricted for military discipline after a Christian Army officer was removed for refusing temple pooja. CJI Surya Kant told him, “You seem completely unsuited for the Army,” while dismissing his plea.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court heard a case about whether a soldier’s right to practise religion can be restricted because of military discipline and unit cohesion.
The case involved a Christian Army officer who was removed from service after he refused to enter his regiment’s temple to perform pooja.
The matter was heard by a Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymala Bagchi.
Also Read: Misuse of Free Speech Harms Dignity; Democracy Needs Duty & Rights: CJI Surya Kant
At the start of the hearing, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant remarked,
“If someone asks you to take part in a ritual, that’s acceptable but there’s no ritual in a Gurudwara. He didn’t even follow what the pastor advised.”
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankarnarayanan, representing the officer, immediately responded that this was exactly the core issue.
He said,
“That’s exactly the issue faith is personal. I can’t be compelled. The pastor only told him about the Sarvdharm Sthal.”
The CJI then reacted sharply, saying,
“If this is the attitude of an Army officer, then what can we say?”
Arguing further, the senior advocate insisted,
“I cannot be forced to take part in ceremonies.”
He added that when a show-cause notice itself was wrong,
“If the show cause notice is factually wrong, I can only respond based on the facts.”
The CJI then questioned the officer’s approach and asked,
“Is there any justification for your concern? You refused just because the place has a temple and Gurudwara doesn’t that end up hurting the sentiments of your own soldiers?”
Sankarnarayanan replied that he had always respected diverse practices, saying,
“I have taken part in various ceremonies and my troops are witness to it.”
Justice Bagchi responded by pointing out constitutional limits, saying,
“Art 25 is limited to the essential features of the religion and not you own understanding.”
The senior advocate countered that even military law does not require such participation, saying, “Even the army act doesnt compel me.”
Justice Kant reminded him that the validity of those provisions was not under challenge and added,
“Those provisions are not in challenge before us. You failed to respect your troops religious sentiments.”
The senior advocate warned about the wider consequences of such an approach, saying,
“I am afraid this is going to send the wrong message.”
Justice Kant replied firmly,
“This is send a very right message.”
CJI Surya Kant then gave a very strong observation, saying,
“You seem completely unsuited for the Army. The Army functions in a fully secular manner you might fit better somewhere else. If there’s any constitutional grey area, we will examine it. But as of now, you’ve breached Rule 332 and caused offence to fellow soldiers.”
Towards the end, Sankarnarayanan questioned how the Army could call itself secular when its regiments were divided on community lines.
He asked,
“How can it be called secular when there are regiments like Jat and Rajput, which are organised along caste lines?”
After hearing all submissions, the Supreme Court dismissed the matter, making it clear that military discipline, cohesion, and respect for the religious sentiments of fellow soldiers cannot be compromised inside the armed forces.
Article 25 of the Indian Constitution gives every person the freedom to follow any religion, practise it openly, and share it with others.
This freedom applies to all individuals, but it is not unlimited. The State can place reasonable restrictions to maintain public order, morality, and health, and to protect other fundamental rights.
Case Title: SAMUEL KAMALESAN V UNION OF INDIA, SLP(C) No. 25838/2025
Read Attachment
Read Live Coverage