Supreme Court ruling on Army discipline, Christian Army soldier was dismissed from service after the Supreme Court criticized him for “grossly indisciplined conduct” when he did not enter the gurdwara/temple at the regimental gurdwara while leading Sikh soldiers, stating that he could not enter due to his Christian faith. This resulted in disciplinary action against him, a ruling from the High Court of Delhi, and a subsequent reprimand from the Supreme Court. In ruling against the officer, the Supreme Court indicated that the officer’s actions sent a message to the soldiers, who anticipated their leader standing with them in the tradition of the regiment.
The Supreme Court also stated that the Army’s ethos is to maintain unity regardless of personal belief, and although the officer may have been an excellent officer in other respects, he was a “misfit” in terms of fit for military service. The ruling raised issues about how to balance the individual rights of soldiers with the requirement for discipline and cohesiveness that the military relies on for operational efficiency in combat situations.
SC Rules Personal Interpretation of Faith Cannot Override Military Discipline
According to Kamalesan, Article 25 guarantees him the rights of his religion, thus protecting him from forced to participate in a ritual that he believes violates his religion. Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan testified that Kamalesan had always respected other religions, and that Kamalesan’s only objection was to going into the Hall of Worship when puja was being performed. Sankaranarayanan also stated that while the regiment does not have a Sarva Dharma Sthal or an area recognised as equal for worship for all religions, the regiment does not discriminate against any religion or its followers. Supreme Court ruling on Army discipline, The Honourable Supreme Court refused to accept Sankaranarayanan’s argument. The Supreme Court Justices stated that Article 25 of the Constitution allows for the protection of religious beliefs as articulated in the Constitution, but not for individual interpretations or individual beliefs regarding faith or religious customs.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi stated that even a local Pastor has told Kamalesan that his entering and remaining in a joint regiment does not violate Christian beliefs or teachings. The Court also stated that the military unit leaders must lead by example, and that a leader who refuses to accompany their soldiers to the unit’s worship area is damaging the morale and unity of the soldiers and the respect they have for each other.
Court decisions
Both the High Court of Delhi and the Supreme Court supported the Army’s dismissal of Kamalesan for violating the legal authority with which he given in favor of his religion and indicated that this type of conduct has no place in a disciplined Service. The Supreme Court supported the High Court’s position that this refusal has a detrimental effect on the essential military ethos of a disciplined Service. The judges also noted that the Army had made continuous attempts to counsel Kamalesan on multiple occasions during his military career and that he continued to miss mandatory events related to his position. The Courts noted that the religious spaces provided by the Army serve to promote unity among soldiers, regardless of their religious affiliation, and have historically contributed to the secular nature of the Indian military environment.
Importance of the case to the military
The Courts reinforced the military discipline associated with conducting oneself uniformly with regard to issues such as those affecting group morale. The Courts indicated that leaders could not choose to accept and follow commands at their discretion because this behaviour diminishes the cohesiveness of the unit. Furthermore, since Kamalesan assigned to a Sikh-dominated squadron, he expected to fully participate in all regimental traditions. According to the Courts, Kamalesan’s refusal to participate in these traditions was an insult to the sentiments of his fellow service members. The Courts further upheld the principle that personal beliefs should not interfere with mission accomplishment. https://legislative.gov.in/
Broader Considerations
This case raises important questions about India’s treatment of religious freedom within institutions that depend on functioning as a collective. In this judgment, the Court found that the Armed Forces place more emphasis on unity and discipline than they do on individual interpretation or definition of faith. Although the officer claimed that his actions isolated, the Court viewed this as undermining the coherent functioning of the Military. Most importantly, this ruling defines the Military as secular – but with one caveat: the secularism of the Military is based on the idea of having all members of the Military operating in concert with one another rather than making exceptions.
FOR MORE UPDATES- https://civiclens.in/category/national-news-civiclens-in/
About the Author
