Add thelocalreport.in As A Trusted Source
New Delhi, Nov 25 (IANS) The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to interfere in the dismissal of a Christian officer who was dismissed from the Indian Army in 2021 for refusing to enter the sanctum sanctorum of his regiment’s temple and gurudwara during the weekly religious parade.
A division bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi upheld the decision of the Delhi High Court, which had confirmed the Army’s decision on the grounds that Lieutenant Samuel Kamleson’s conduct amounted to disobedience of lawful military orders and was detrimental to unit cohesion.
The bench led by CJI Kant took a strong stance on Adhikari’s insistence that despite repeated advice from senior officials and even a local priest, his faith prevented him from entering the inner temple. “What can I say if an army officer has this attitude!” The top court made this comment while rejecting the petition.
Lieutenant Kamlesan, posted in the Sikh squadron, had argued that stepping inside the sanctum sanctorum would be a violation of the First Commandment – ”You shall have no other gods before me.” He argued that he always attended parades but stood outside the innermost area as a symbol of his faith and respect for the feelings of his soldiers.
The Army, on the other hand, argued before the Delhi High Court that it was an issue of discipline and leadership rather than personal belief.
In its judgment, the Delhi High Court had said that the armed forces operate on high discipline where “nation before self and, of course, nation before religion” governs every action. Delhi HC said, as a commanding officer, Kamlesan had the additional responsibility of connecting with his troops and maintaining morale.
Upholding his dismissal, a division bench of Delhi HC comprising Justices Naveen Chawla and Shalinder Kaur, in its May 30 order, said, “The petitioner has placed his religion above the legal order of his superior. This is clearly an act of indiscipline.”
The Supreme Court also questioned whether the officer’s conduct was not an insult to the faith of his own soldiers. “You refused to go just because there is a temple and Gurudwara there. Doesn’t this amount to hurting the sentiments of your soldiers?” the bench led by CJI Kant asked.
It states, “Is entry into the sanctum sanctorum of a temple prohibited in the Christian faith? Article 25 protects essential practices, not every individual sentiment.”
Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for Kamlesan, argued that the officer was being punished for a single violation and was otherwise “disciplined in all respects”. Sankaranarayanan said Kamlesan had participated in ceremonies at “all religious places” elsewhere, but there was “only one temple and one gurudwara” at his posting. The top court said that even a chaplain had advised the officer that entering the regimental place of worship would not violate Christian principles.
“You cannot have your own personal understanding of what your religion says, that too when you are in uniform,” the CJI Kant-led bench remarked, terming the conduct as “the most serious kind of indiscipline by an Army officer”.
When the petitioner demanded that the penalty be reduced on the basis of proportionality, the Supreme Court refused. It said, “You may excel in hundreds of things, but the Indian Army is known for its secular outlook. When you cannot maintain discipline there… then you have failed to respect the sentiments of your own soldiers.”
Dismissing the appeal, the bench led by CJI Kant remarked that its judgment would “send a strong message”.
–IANS
PDS/UK