Army officer dismissed after refusing to enter Gurdwara; Supreme Court backs disciplinary action

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday firmly upheld the Army’s decision to dismiss a Christian officer who refused to enter a gurdwara to perform a puja, ruling that his actions amounted to gross indiscipline and ran contrary to the basic ethos of military service.

The court stated that the former Lieutenant's conduct demonstrated an inability to respect the faith of fellow soldiers, particularly those of Sikh heritage, and reinforced the armed forces’ stance that discipline must remain paramount.

A Bench headed by the newly-appointed Chief Justice Surya Kant observed that the officer’s behaviour sent the wrong message within the ranks and that such defiance could not be tolerated in a force that relies on cohesion and respect across diverse religious groups. The court noted his past record but maintained that even an otherwise competent officer could be considered a misfit if he failed to uphold the standards expected in uniform.

The judges stressed that the armed forces currently shoulder immense responsibilities and cannot accommodate conduct that disturbs unity or discipline.

The officer, Samuel Kamalesan of the 3rd Cavalry Regiment, was removed from service after he refused a directive from a superior to enter the sanctum of a temple and conduct a puja during a regimental observance. Kamalesan argued the order conflicted with his Christian belief in monotheism and said entering the inner sanctum would violate his faith.

His refusal led to disciplinary proceedings and eventual dismissal, a decision upheld earlier this year by the Delhi High Court, which held that he had placed his personal faith above a lawful command and thereby breached essential military norms.

The Supreme Court echoed this view, with Justice Joymala Bagchi pointing out that Kamalesan had disregarded even the counsel of his own pastor regarding the matter. The Bench emphasised that personal interpretations of religion could not override duties in uniform and that military life demanded adherence to established practices aimed at ensuring unity.

Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, representing Kamalesan, argued the dismissal was an excessive penalty for a single instance of refusal. He also maintained that the officer had participated in various religious festivals and expressed respect for other faiths. The court, however, noted that the issue was not participation in general celebrations but refusal to comply with a direct order in a place of worship regarded with profound reverence by Sikh personnel.

Sankaranarayanan contended that constitutional protections allow individuals to practise their own religion and to decline participation in rituals of other faiths. He argued that joining the Army should not require surrendering one’s religious identity. The Bench, however, rejected the argument and ruled that the requirement to maintain discipline and uphold unity within the forces superseded Kamalesan’s personal objections in this instance.