Consistently Refused To Fully Participate In Weekly Regimental Religious Parades At Sarv Dharm Sthal: Delhi High Court Upholds Termination Of Army Officer

The Delhi High Court has upheld the termination of an Indian Army Officer who refused to fully participate in the weekly regimental religious parades.

The Court was hearing a Writ Petition challenging the Order dismissing him from the Indian Army without pension and gratuity.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur observed, “In the present case, the prevailing facts establish that the petitioner had consistently refused to fully participate in weekly Regimental religious parades at the ‘Sarv Dharm Sthal’ despite multiple opportunities and counselling sessions at various levels; his conduct had adversely affected the traditional camaraderie between officers and troops of the Regiment; the issue had persisted without any indication of the petitioner's willingness to comply with military discipline. As the religious sentiments and the morale of the troops were in question, the same made a formal Court Martial proceedings unsuitable for resolution.”

The Bench noted that the termination was based on his conduct and its impact on military discipline and unit cohesion, rather than solely on the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) ratings.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan represented the Petitioner while ASG Chetan Sharma represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The Petitioner was commissioned in the Indian Army in 2017 in the rank of a Lieutenant in the 3rd Cavalry Regiment, which comprises of 3 squadrons of Sikh, Jat, and Rajput personnel. He was made the Troop Leader of Squadron ‘B’, which comprises of Sikh Personnel. As per the Petitioner, his Regiment maintains only a Mandir and a Gurudwara for its religious needs and parades, and not a “Sarv Dharm Sthal”, which would serve persons of all faiths. The Petitioner, who was of Christian faith, claimed that there is no church in the premises. He claimed that even the written orders calling the Regiment to the weekly religious parades, referred to such parades as the “Mandir Gurudwara parade”, and even in common parlance, the term “Sarv Dharm Sthal”, was not used in the Regiment.

The Petitioner further claimed that he accompanied his troops to the Mandir/Gurudwara for the weekly religious parades and also attended the religious festivals of his troops, such as Diwali, Navratri, Lohri, Gurpurab, Holi and similar celebrations. He also 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. As he was dismissed from service without pension and gratuity, he approached the High Court, seeking reinstatement in service.

Reasoning

The High Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel, remarked, “While we recognize the importance of religious freedom, the petitioner's position as a Commanding Officer required him to prioritize unit cohesion and the morale of his troops. His persistent refusal to fully participate in weekly regimental religious parades, despite extensive counseling and opportunities for compliance, justified the action taken by the respondent.”

The Court said that in the specific context of military discipline and the unique circumstances of the case involving religious beliefs and regimental cohesion, the Chief of Army Staff's satisfaction that conducting a Court Martial would be both inexpedient and impracticable, given the sensitive nature of the religious issue, appears well-founded.

“We find that in such circumstances, a Court Martial might have led to unnecessary controversies, which could be detrimental to the secular fabric of the Armed Forces. The decision to not hold a Court Martial, therefore, appears to be well thought out and within the powers conferred on the Central Government and the Chief of Army Staff under Rule 14(2) of the Army Rules. The satisfaction of the Central Government or the Chief of Army Staff regarding both the inexpedient and impracticable nature of conducting a Court Martial in this case is based on sound reasoning and is not arbitrary or capricious”, it further held.

The Court also noted that impugned Termination Order specifically notes that the Petitioner's undisciplined behaviour was against all secular norms of the Indian Army and had adversely affected the traditional camaraderie between officers and troops of the Regiment, which would be detrimental in combat situations where rapport with troops is the most important and decisive battle winning factor.

“… the decision was taken after careful consideration of the specific circumstances of the case and the potential consequences of different courses of action. … while the petitioner claims that his ACR for 2017 and 2018 contained adverse remarks due to religious discrimination, and that there was tampering wherein what was shown to him differed from what was sent to superiors, these allegations remain unsubstantiated”, it added.

The Court further said that even assuming that there were irregularities in the earlier ACRs, the same would not negate the substantive issue of the Petitioner's continued refusal to participate fully in regimental religious parades despite multiple counselling sessions and opportunities for compliance.

“The termination process followed proper procedures under Section 19 of the Army Act read with Rule 14 of the Army Rules. The petitioner received adequate notice through the Show Cause Notice dated 31.01.2019, was given full opportunity to respond, and his reply was duly considered through the proper chain of command before the final decision was rendered. The procedural safeguards envisaged under Rule 14(2) of the Army Rules have been substantially complied with”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition and refused to interfere with the impugned Order.

Cause Title- Samuel Kamalesan v. Union of India (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:4652-DB)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Advocates Abhishek Jebaraj, A. Reyna Shruti, Shourya Desgupta, and Shivani Sagar Kalra.

Respondent: ASG Chetan Sharma, CGSC Ripudaman Bhardwaj, Advocates Avshreya Pratap Singh Rudy, Amit Gupta, Kushagra Kumar, Abhinav Bharadwaj, and Saurabh Tripathi.

Click here to read/download the Judgment