Secularism and Discipline in the Indian Army: The Case of Lt. Samuel Kamalesan
The Indian Army is one of the most disciplined and secular institutions in the country. Known for its unity in diversity, the Army comprises personnel from various religions, castes, and regions. Yet, everyone serves under one uniform, one flag, and one constitution. A recent Delhi High Court verdict upholding the dismissal of an Army officer, Lieutenant Samuel Kamalesan, has brought to focus the importance of religious neutrality and discipline within the armed forces.
Background
Lt. Samuel Kamalesan joined the Indian Army in 2017. He was posted to a Sikh Regiment unit where a gurdwara and a temple were present within the regimental premises. These places of worship often hold religious ceremonies in which soldiers are encouraged—though not forced—to participate, as part of maintaining the traditional camaraderie and cohesion of the unit.
However, Lt. Kamalesan refused to participate in these events. As a Christian, he objected not only to the Sikh religious ceremonies but also to the absence of a church or an interfaith place of worship (Sarva Dharma Sthal) in the regiment. He expressed his disapproval, citing that his religious rights were being infringed upon.
Despite several rounds of counselling and attempts by his superiors to resolve the matter, Lt. Kamalesan remained defiant. The Army eventually dismissed him, citing his non-compliance as a serious breach of discipline. Kamalesan challenged his dismissal in the Delhi High Court, which on April 30th, 2025, upheld the Army’s decision.
Court’s Observations
The judgment, delivered by Justices Navin Chawla and Saurabh Banerjee, emphasized the Army’s secular foundation. The court noted:
“The Indian Army comprises people from all religions and castes. They are united by their uniform, not divided by their beliefs. While the Army respects religious sentiments, it cannot allow personal faith to override military discipline and obedience.”
The judges explained that regiments like Sikh, Jat, and Rajput exist based on tradition, not religious exclusivity. Officers appointed to such units are not expected to follow that particular religion but are expected to respect the traditions and rituals that foster unit cohesion. The court ruled that Kamalesan’s refusal to comply reflected a lack of military discipline and secular values.
Religion and Military Discipline
The Indian Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of religion. However, this right is not absolute—especially for military personnel. The armed forces function on the foundation of discipline, uniformity, and hierarchy. Personal preferences, including religious beliefs, must be balanced with the demands of service.
In the Army, an officer is free to practice their religion privately. But when personal faith interferes with professional responsibilities, particularly obedience to orders and participation in unit traditions, it undermines the foundation of the force. Kamalesan’s case demonstrated a clear conflict between personal faith and military responsibility.
Regimental Traditions and Unity
Military units are like families. Regimental traditions—be they religious, cultural, or ceremonial—serve to strengthen bonds among soldiers. Participation in such events, regardless of faith, promotes team spirit and mutual respect. Refusing to engage in these traditions creates a divide and threatens the unity that is essential in combat and everyday military life.
It’s important to note that no one is coerced into performing religious rituals. However, being part of the environment and showing respect is expected. For example, standing in attendance during a ceremony or accompanying fellow soldiers to a gurdwara doesn’t necessarily violate personal faith, but helps foster mutual trust and understanding.
The Role of Officers in Upholding Secularism
Officers in the Indian Army are expected to lead by example. Their conduct sets the tone for their subordinates. If an officer refuses to participate in a unit’s traditions or disobeys a lawful command, it sends the wrong message and risks creating factions within the unit.
The court rightfully stated that Kamalesan gave undue priority to his personal beliefs over his duties as an officer. By doing so, he not only disobeyed his superiors but also disrupted the harmony and morale of the regiment.
Secularism in the Indian Army
The Indian Army stands as a model of secularism. Soldiers from different faiths fight shoulder-to-shoulder, bound not by religious identity but by their commitment to the nation. Every regiment in the Army includes men and women of different religions, and mutual respect is the cornerstone of their service.
In many Army units, regimental shrines are open to all. A Hindu soldier may visit a gurdwara, a Sikh soldier may attend a temple event, and a Muslim soldier may observe his prayers—all without prejudice or restrictions. This inclusive environment nurtures unity and reflects the true spirit of India.
Freedom vs. Responsibility
One of the key takeaways from the court verdict is the delicate balance between freedom of religion and the responsibility of service. Freedom of belief cannot come at the cost of professional duty, especially in an institution like the Army where discipline, obedience, and unity are paramount.
Kamalesan had every right to follow his faith. But in refusing to comply with regimental traditions and disrespecting the established norms, he failed to uphold the values expected of an Army officer.
Legal and Institutional Implications
The court’s decision sets a clear precedent: individual beliefs cannot compromise the discipline and unity of the armed forces. The Army, while respectful of all religions, retains the right to enforce uniform practices essential for its functioning.
The ruling reinforces the idea that service in the armed forces is a voluntary commitment that sometimes requires personal sacrifices for the greater good. Upholding the chain of command and maintaining harmony among troops takes precedence over personal preferences.
Conclusion
The case of Lt. Samuel Kamalesan is not merely about religious freedom—it is about the core values that sustain the Indian Army: discipline, secularism, and unity. His refusal to participate in unit traditions, though rooted in personal belief, conflicted with his professional obligations.
The Delhi High Court’s judgment rightfully emphasized that personal faith must not override duty, especially in an institution as sensitive and strategic as the Army. It also highlighted the need for officers to act with maturity, tolerance, and responsibility.
The Indian Army will continue to respect all faiths—but only within the framework of discipline and unity. When the uniform is worn, it symbolizes a commitment above caste, creed, or religion—a commitment to the nation first.
