Answer

Introduction

In the Armed Forces, constitutional freedom of religion under Article 25 coexists with the overriding imperatives of discipline, hierarchy and unit cohesion. The recent Supreme Court judgment reiterates that while essential religious practices merit protection, personal interpretations cannot supersede military ethos vital for national security and collective duty.

Body

Essential Religious Practices Warrant Protection in Service Conditions

• Constitutional Guarantee of Faith: Service members retain Article 25 rights to profess and practice religion.
• Protection of “Essential” Religious Tenets: Only core practices integral to the faith deserve safeguarding.
  Eg: SC asked if Christian doctrine expressly prohibits entering a temple before rejecting private interpretation.
• Promotion of Secular Morale: Respecting religious differences enhances inclusivity in a plural military.
  Eg: Army acknowledges regiments consist of soldiers of multiple faiths sharing duties and spaces.
• Avoiding Forced Participation in Opposing Rituals: Coercion can infringe true conscience and lead to resentment.
• Balancing Commands with Religious Sensitivity: Reasonable accommodation may be possible without harming discipline.

When Essential Religious Practices Do NOT Warrant Protection

• Military Discipline Overrides Individual Preference: Chain of command must be respected to maintain operational readiness.
  Eg: SC called the act the “grossest kind of indiscipline.”
• Personal Interpretation Not Acceptable: Private understanding of religion cannot justify disobedience in uniform.
• Unit Cohesion is Paramount: Religious disputes should not undermine soldier morale and teamwork.
  Eg: Govt argued distancing from regimental practices harms motivation and war cries.
• Uniform Secularism of Indian Army: Army’s secular ethos demands mutual respect for diverse regimental traditions.
• Obedience to Lawful Commands: Refusal to perform mandatory parades is a clear violation of service rules.
  Eg: Delhi HC held the officer kept religion above lawful command, justifying dismissal.

Need to Balance Individual Faith with Military Imperatives

• Judicial Doctrine of Reasonable Accommodation: Courts must ensure rights are not disproportionately restricted.
• Secular Identity with Regimental Traditions: Allow faith expression without eroding collective regimental culture.
  Eg: Troops derive pride and war cries from devotional practises to deity.
• Clear Policy on Religious Practices: Rules must define permissibility to avoid confusion and personal interpretations.
• Leadership Responsibility: Officers expected to lead by Eg while upholding respect for troop sentiments.
• Maintaining Fraternity Beyond Religion: Cohesion should rest on shared national duty while respecting diverse faiths.

Conclusion

Army personnel retain religious freedom, but only essential practices deserving constitutional protection can be accommodated. Where faith conflicts with military discipline, hierarchy, and cohesion, the Supreme Court affirms that national duty in uniform prevails.

DOWNLOAD PDF