The recent Supreme Court of India decision dismissing Lt Samuel Kamalesan’s Special Leave Petition (SLP) and upholding his termination
- The case highlights a profound clash between Individual conscience, Freedom of Religion (Article 25), and the Armed Forces’ need for discipline, unity, and cohesion (sanctioned by Article 33).
About Special Leave Petition (SLP)
- Constitutional Basis: Provided under Article 136, giving the Supreme Court discretionary power to grant special leave to appeal from any court or tribunal (except military courts).
- Primary Purpose: To act as a constitutional safeguard against grave injustice, ensuring that exceptional errors do not escape judicial scrutiny when no regular appeal exists.
- Nature of the Remedy: Not a right of appeal; SLP is an extraordinary and residual jurisdiction, invoked only in exceptional cases of injustice.
- Grounds for Admission: Granted only in cases of gross miscarriage of justice, perverse findings, violation of natural justice, or substantial questions of law.
- Who May File & When: Any aggrieved party can file.
- Time limits: 90 days from judgment or 60 days from dismissal of HC review petition.
- Significance: Acts as a safety valve ensuring uniform justice nationwide.
- However, overuse has made SLPs a major contributor to SC’s caseload, diluting its exceptional character.
- Limitations: Not meant to bypass statutory appeals.
- SC generally avoids interference in interim orders, except where serious illegality is shown.
|
Background of Case
- Regimental Ethos & Leadership Expectations: Lt. Kamalesan served in a fixed-class Sikh–Jat–Rajput regiment, where ritual participation is a core symbol of unit identity, solidarity, and morale.
- Officers are expected to follow troop practices to strengthen the officer–jawan bond, often participating in rituals irrespective of personal faith.
- Kamalesan Refusal: Lt. Kamalesan, a Protestant Christian, attended all external parade rituals but refused to enter the sanctum or perform puja/aarti, citing faith..
- However, he consistently participated in all other aspects of the parade. He offered to stand respectfully outside.
- Army’s Interpretation of the Refusal: The Army viewed the refusal as public distancing from regimental customs, disobedience of a lawful command, and therefore gross indiscipline.
- It interpreted the act not as private belief but as conduct that weakened leadership credibility, morale, and cohesion.
- Institutional & Precedent Concerns: Allowing exemptions could set a precedent weakening uniform discipline, as in earlier cases like the Indian Air Force (IAF) beard dispute.
- Case Outcome: Following proceedings under Section 19 of the Army Act and Rule 14, he was dismissed in March 2021.
- The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal, ruling that military discipline and collective ethos override individual religious conscience.
- Section 19 of the Army Act, 1950 allows the Central Government to dismiss an officer for misconduct or unsuitability, while Rule 14 of the Army Rules, 1954 permits dismissal without Court Martial, after due process like a Show Cause Notice.
Judicial Endorsement of Military Discipline over Individual Conscience
- High Court Reasoning:
- Stand on Discipline: The Delhi High Court ruled that the issue was obedience to military command, not religious freedom.
- Precedents Relied On: It invoked Mohammed Zubair (2017), R. Viswan (1983), and L.D. Balam Singh (2002) cases, affirming the primacy of discipline and uniformity under Article 33.
- Role Obligations: The Court held that as an officer, he bore added obligations to lead, motivate, and sustain regimental unity.
- Judicial Deference: The Court stated that an “ordinary person” standard cannot be applied to Armed Forces requirements.
- Supreme Court Verdict:
- The Supreme Court reiterated the principle of judicial deference, emphasising that courts must not second-guess military expertise in matters of discipline, cohesion, and operational necessity.
- Essential Practice Test: The Bench ruled that not every religious sentiment qualifies as an “essential practice” under Article 25.
- Leadership Failure: The Court called his conduct “gross indiscipline” and described him as a “misfit for the Army”.
- Conscience vs. Command: The SC held that refusal constituted disobedience of lawful command, not exercise of faith.
- Final Outcome: The Supreme Court dismissed the SLP, affirming that institutional necessity and cohesion can override an individual’s conscience-based objection in the military context.
Constitutional & Legal Constitutional Framework Governing Religious Freedom and Military Discipline
- Article 25: Guarantees freedom of religious belief and the right to abstain from rituals of another faith.
- Justice Bagchi: Article 25 protects essential religious features, not every sentiment.”
- Article 33: Allows Parliament to restrict fundamental rights of Armed Forces personnel to maintain discipline and efficiency—the foundation of the verdict.
- Lawful Command Doctrine: Refusing a lawful order constitutes misconduct under military law.
- Constitutional Ethics of Tolerance: Precedents like Bijoe Emmanuel highlight that respectful non-participation reflects constitutional morality, not defiance.
- Balancing Test: The Court applied a framework where institutional necessity outweighed individual liberty in a military context.
|
Core Ethical Dilemmas
- Individual Conscience vs. Institutional Duty:
- Moral Autonomy: Kamalesan prioritised his conscience, showing Integrity and Moral Courage despite severe consequences.
- Duty Imperative:The Army prioritised obedience, discipline, and command responsibility, arguing that leaders must model uniform behaviour.
- Right vs. Right: This represents a classic ethical clash between personal belief and public duty.
- Positive Secularism vs. Negative Liberty:
- Positive Secularism: Regimental rituals exemplify Sarva Dharma Sama Bhava, reinforcing unity through shared practices.
- The Indian Army follows a model of lived secularism, where shared rituals function as symbols of fraternity rather than religious compulsion, reinforcing common identity across faiths.
- Negative Liberty: The officer asserted his right to abstain from religious acts, arguing forced participation violates freedom from coercion.
- Ethical Question: Whether symbolic participation can ethically override individual boundaries of faith.
- Leadership Ethics and Command Integrity:
- Expectations of Command: Officers must lead by example, strengthening trust and collective identity. Within military ethics, the maxim ‘presence equals solidarity’ shapes leadership expectations, making an officer’s visible participation a symbolic anchor for troop morale.
- Perceived Disrespect: The Court viewed refusal as an insult to troops, undermining their faith, morale, and confidence.
- Leadership Failure: The case highlights the ethics of exemplary leadership, where personal choices influence unit psychology.
- Utilitarian vs. Deontological Reasoning:
- Utilitarian Rationale: The Army emphasised greater good — maintaining cohesion, readiness, and national security.
- Deontological Duty: The officer argued it is inherently wrong to violate conscience, regardless of outcomes.
- Ethical Divide: The case pits outcome-based ethics against principle-based ethics.
- Proportionality & Institutional Flexibility:
- Sanction Severity: Dismissal raised concerns of disproportionate punishment.
- The ethical test of proportionality requires that punishment be commensurate with the actual impact on discipline, especially when the objection is narrow, sincere, and respectfully expressed.
- Accommodation Possibility: A small adjustment—such as allowing respectful presence outside the sanctum—could have upheld both unit cohesion and the officer’s moral autonomy, demonstrating ethical proportionality.
Way Forward
- Clear Ritual Guidelines: Establish rules distinguishing symbolic presence from ritual participation, preventing coercion while retaining cohesion.
- Reasonable Accommodation: Institutional frameworks should formally recognise conscience-based objections and allow limited, clearly defined accommodations—such as symbolic presence without ritual involvement—so that individual dignity and institutional discipline are simultaneously preserved.
- Graduated Sanctions: Adopt proportional disciplinary steps before terminal penalties in conscience-based disputes.
- Ethics & Diversity Training: Leadership development must embed ethics, pluralism, and diversity-awareness, enabling commanders to resolve faith-based dilemmas through dialogue, empathy, and contextual judgment rather than rigid enforcement.
- Inclusive Leadership Culture: Showcasing examples of faith-neutral leadership—such as Brig. Desmond Hayde, Lt. Col. Tarapore, and Col. Sofiya Qureshi—reinforce that genuine military leadership rests on solidarity, not ritual conformity.
- Institutional Learning: Excessive institutional rigidity in responding to sincere conscience-based objections risks weakening pluralistic leadership and undermining the ethical foundations of trust within a diverse force.
- Even the strongest institution can fall into a pattern where ritual becomes rigidity and rigidity becomes exclusion. International practice shows small accommodations can coexist with cohesion. The Eric Liddell example illustrates that sincere belief can be respected without breaking team unity.
| Eric Liddell, the Scottish runner who refused to run the 100-meter qualifying heat at the 1924 Paris Olympics because it was scheduled for a Sunday. Instead of being punished, the British Olympic team switched his event to the 400 meters, a race he subsequently won gold in, a feat not often expected of him as it was not his specialty. |
- Constitutional Sensitivity: Uphold the ethics that discipline must coexist with tolerance, reflecting the spirit of Bijoe Emmanuel.
- Bijoe Emmanuel Case (1986): Three Jehovah’s Witness children were expelled for not singing the national anthem; the Supreme Court upheld their religious freedom under Article 25, emphasizing respectful non-participation.
- Constitutional morality demands that institutions preserve discipline while ensuring tolerance, respect, and accommodation remain central to functioning in a diverse democracy.
Conclusion
“When duty meets conscience, the ethical task is not to choose one over the other, but to create room where both can coexist.” The Kamalesan case reaffirms that while Article 33 discipline is vital, long-term trust in a diverse democracy demands accommodation and proportionality.
28 Nov 2025
.png)
GS Foundation
Optional Course
Combo Courses
Degree Program
