“A good soldier is a disciplined soldier.A disciplined soldier is the one who can be trusted.”- Sam Manekshaw (Field Marshal)
The recent judgment of the Supreme Court of India in Samuel Kamlesan v. Union of India headed by the bench of Hon’ble CJI & Justice Joymalya Baghchi upheld the order passed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi which dismissed an Army officer who refused to participate in his regiment’s religious parades. The issue has provoked a nationwide debate on what secularism means within the ranks of the armed forces. For some critics, the decision signals a contraction of India’s secular space, privileging majoritarian religious rituals over individual conscience. For others, the judgment restores a crucial truth that the armed forces cannot function without collective discipline, shared traditions, and unqualified obedience to the chain of command.
The truth, however, lies somewhere between these contradicting poles. India’s constitutional design on secularism is a complex, layered & often misunderstood concept which the Indian courts through its precedence have time and again explained. The military’s institutional ethos is no less nuanced. To understand the significance of the judgment, one must examine the constitutional principles at play with the competing claims of religious freedom and military necessity along with the larger jurisprudence that has shaped India’s conception of secularism.
The Case matrix- When Conscience Challenged Cohesion
The dismissed officer was at the rank of lieutenant in the 3rd Cavalry Regiment which comprised 3 squadrons of Sikh, Jat and Rajput personnel. The officer was a practicing Christian, who objected to participating in his regiment’s weekly religious parades and objected that the Regiment maintains only a Mandir and a Gurudwara and not a “sarv dharma sthal” which would serve persons of all faiths & ceremonies that included entering places of worship associated with other faiths. He claimed that he only sought exemption from entering the innermost part/sanctorum of the temple when the puja/havan/aarti,etc., were taking place, not only as a sign of respect to his monotheistic Christian faith, but also as a sign of respect towards the sentiments of his troops so that his non-participation while in the inner shrine would not desecrate and offend their religious sentiments.
The respondent claimed that several rounds of oral and written counselling took place and in fact efforts were also made through other Christian officers in the Army, and by taking the petitioner to the Pastor of the local Church-Church of North India, Diocese of Chandigarh, by whom he was told that entering the “Sarv Dharm Sthal” as part of his duties would not impinge, in any manner, on his Christian faith, however the petitioner remained undeterred
After following due process under the administrative termination of the service of the petitioner under Section 19 of the Army Act, 1950 read with Rule 14 of the Army Rules, 1954,the Army terminated his service through a summary court martial. He challenged the decision at High Court and ultimately reaching the Supreme Court, the bench upheld the termination, characterizing his conduct as “indiscipline” incompatible with the obligations of military service. These events, although religious in form are long-standing regimental traditions meant to foster unity, morale, and camaraderie. His refusal, repeated over time and despite counselling by a pastor was viewed as an act of insubordination capable of undermining his authority as a leader and hence impacting the emotional cohesion of his troops.
A wave of questions were triggered after the pronouncement of judgements like does secularism require that no soldier be compelled to participate in rituals of another faith? Or does military necessity justify limited restrictions? Where does the Constitution draw the line?
Constitutional foundation and Armed Forces ecosystem
Indian constitutional secularism does not replicate the Western model of strict separation between State and religion. It in fact embodies “principled neutrality” a respectful distance but not by a rigid wall. The Armed Forces, however, operate within a separate constitutional ecosystem which categorically governs them.
Three constitutional provisions were particularly relevant to the Court’s reasoning:
1. Article 25 – Freedom of Religion
Article 25 guarantees freedom of conscience and religion. Yet, it is not an absolute right and comes with a caveat. It is expressly subject to public order, morality, health & other provisions of Part III. The Court emphasized that the armed forces exist in a heightened sphere of “public order,” where even minor disturbances in cohesion may have serious consequences during the time of combat.
2. Article 33 -Parliament May Modify Rights of Armed Forces Personnel
Recognizing the importance and uniqueness of the Armed Forces, Article 33 of the Constitution of India empowers the Parliament to determine the extent to which the Fundamental Rights stated in Part-III of the Constitution shall apply to the members of the Armed Forces. This is the cornerstone of military constitutionalism. Article 33 empowers Parliament to make laws, restrict or curtail fundamental rights of members of the armed forces “in the interest of discipline.” It recognizes the unique nature of military service which out of personal interest and institutional interest choses the latter.
The Supreme Court in Mohammed Zubair Corporal No. 781467-G (supra), highlighted the above aspect of the Indian Armed Forces, by observing as under:
…….For the effective and thorough functioning of a large combat force, the members of the Force must bond together by a sense of espirit de corps, without distinctions of caste, creed, colour or religion. There can be no gainsaying the fact that maintaining the unity of the Force is an important facet of instilling a sense of commitment, and dedication amongst the members of the Force. Every member of the Air Force while on duty is required to wear the uniform and not display any sign or object which distinguishes one from another. Uniformity of personal appearance is quintessential to a cohesive, disciplined and coordinated functioning of an Armed Force.
Thus, when a conflict arises between individual faith practice and collective discipline, Article 33 tilts the balance toward institutional interest.
3. Secularism as a part of Basic Structure Doctrine
The Supreme Court famously held in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) that secularism is part of the Constitution’s basic structure. But Bommai did not demand a sterilized public square. Rather, it insisted that the State must not identify with or privilege any religion.
The Army’s rationale was based not on favouring one religion over another, but on preserving regimental traditions that bind troops emotionally and psychologically.
The court relied on several other judgements in this regard which defined essential religious practices.The court in M.Ismail Farooqui (1994) upheld that only “essential religious practice” is protected under Article 25. Ritual participation without doctrinal significance is not an essential practice.
In Lt. Col. Prithi Pal Singh Bedi (1982)-The Supreme Court held that the armed forces operate under a unique code of discipline and hence limitations on fundamental rights are constitutionally permissible.
Conclusion
The Court, while carefully balancing competing considerations, held that participation cannot be conflated with endorsement, and that merely standing alongside one’s troops during a ceremonial observance does not amount to the practice of another religion. Such participation is ceremonial, not devotional, and therefore does not impinge upon an individual’s personal beliefs. Emphasising that leadership demands leading from the front, the Court observed that officers set behavioural benchmarks, and any selective abstention from established regimental practices by a commanding officer risks eroding discipline by prompting subordinates to question authority and weakening the chain of command. It was further held that regimental identity transcends individual identity and that the Army’s secularism is collective, functional, and rooted in regimentation: an aspect insufficiently appreciated by the officer concerned. The Court underscored that disregard of regimental traditions would gravely undermine troop morale and fracture unity and cohesion, particularly in combat situations, reiterating that the regiment becomes the soldier’s religion and the uniform the soldier’s identity, with rituals drawn from history, culture, or faith serving as the emotional glue that binds the force together.
Road forward –Delicate balance where faith has space but not primacy
The Judgement underscores a foundational principle of military life wherein the uniform demands certain sacrifices of self because the mission demands unity above individuality. Yet the concerns raised by critics cannot be brushed aside. India’s armed forces must continually reflect on whether their rituals are inclusive, representative, and sensitive to all faiths. A modernizing force might consider to have a more interfaith regimental spaces, regular secular bonding activities or a clearer distinctions between ritual participation and devotional acts.
The Court’s ruling does not foreclose these possibilities it merely affirms that change must occur institutionally, not through unilateral refusal by an individual officer.
By Pragya Parijat Singh, Advocate-on-Record, Supreme Court of India