“What kind of message is he sending? Gross indiscipline by an Army officer. He should have been terminated. This kind of cantankerous persons deserves to be in the military?” the bench said.
It added, “He may be an outstanding officer but he is a misfit for the Indian Army. The amount of responsibilities our forces have at this time, this is not what we want to entertain.”
Court says religious beliefs cannot override discipline
The bench rejected Kamalesan’s argument that his Christian faith prevented him from entering the gurdwara’s inner sanctum. “When your pastor counsels you... you leave it at that. You cannot have your private understanding of what your religion permits. That too, in uniform...” Justice Joymala Bagchi remarked, stressing that personal religious interpretations cannot interfere with military discipline.
Defence argues it was a ‘single infraction’
Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for Kamalesan, insisted that the Army had overreacted. “They (i.e., the Army) dismissed him for a single infraction,” he argued, adding that Kamalesan had shown respect for other faiths by taking part in festivals such as Holi and Diwali.
He explained that the religious space in question did not have a sarv dharm sthal a structure representing all religions but only a gurdwara. According to him, Kamalesan was willing to participate in activities outside the sanctum. “He is standing right outside the sanctorum. He told them, ‘Everything else you want me to do outside, I'll do... but entering the sanctorum is against my faith...’” Sankaranarayanan said.
He added that only one superior officer had objected, stressing, “Just see the termination order passed. He is not a cantankerous man.” He also invoked constitutional protections, saying, “By joining the Army, one does not lose one's religious identity. I was entering the gurdwara, temple, everything... but I stopped when they asked me to do puja. That much the Constitution provides,” and reiterated, “I profess monotheistic faith...”
SC rejects religious freedom argument
The court, however, refused to accept the claim that religious freedom allowed a soldier to ignore a superior’s order. It said military discipline required unquestioned adherence to commands, especially in matters affecting unit cohesion.
What did the officer do?
Kamalesan was fired for defying a lawful command from his superior officer. He refused to enter the sanctum sanctorum of a temple to perform a puja, saying it went against his monotheistic Christian beliefs. Earlier in May, the Delhi High Court had also upheld the Army’s action. It ruled that Kamalesan had “kept his religion above a lawful command from his superior” and declared, “This is clearly an act of indiscipline.”
About The Author
.jpeg)
Comment List