Every democracy faces moments when two values, both legitimate and which are deeply held, collide. The case of Lieutenant Samuel Kamalesan, dismissed from the Indian Army for refusing to enter the sanctum of his regiment’s temple or gurdwara during mandatory parades, is one such clash. The Delhi High Court upheld the dismissal (Samuel Kamalesan vs Union of India), and the Supreme Court of India declined to interfere. The legal result is clear. The moral unease remains.
The Court relied on military necessity, discipline and the power given by the Constitution under Article 33. The judgment places his refusal within the frame of disobedience of a lawful command rather than the practice of personal faith. Seen through that narrow lens, the courts acted exactly as they believe they should in military matters: defer to the generals. But that deference should not end the national conversation. When two legitimate values collide — conscience and cohesion — the tragedy is not simply that one side must lose. The tragedy is when institutions forget that accommodation is often possible, and often wise.
The Army’s perspective
No one can dismiss what the Indian Army told the Court. A commanding officer in a fixed-class regiment must be accepted by the men he leads into war. Ritual and ceremony, though rooted in faith, serve as instruments of morale. Officers are expected to participate fully to strengthen their bond with the troops. The Indian Army saw the officer’s stance as distancing, even if he meant it respectfully. The Court accepted this view. Military ethos demands unity. And no institution in India has preserved unity more honourably than the Indian Army. Whether in Kashmir or in Ladakh, whether rescuing civilians in floods or leading missions of the United Nations, the Indian Army has had a proud record of respecting diversity while building common purpose.
A recent example bears repeating. Colonel Sofiya Qureshi was projected by the Indian Army as the face of Operation Sindoor during press briefings. Her leadership, confidence and professionalism were celebrated nationally. It was a reminder that the Indian Army has often been ahead of civilian society in giving space, honour and responsibility to women and to officers from every faith and region. That inclusive spirit is one of the Indian Army’s strengths, and the country takes pride in it. Which is why the Kamalesan case stings.
One cannot read the facts without seeing sincerity in his stance. He attended the parades. He respected the customs. He removed his shoes, tied the turban and stood with his troops. His only request was not to enter the sanctum during ritual worship, a core doctrinal issue for many Protestant Christians. The situation brings to mind Chariots of Fire, the story of Eric Liddell, who would not race on a Sunday. Instead of punishing him, the British Olympic team reorganised its entire plan. He competed on a different day. He won gold. The world did not fall apart. A small accommodation upheld both conscience and team spirit. If an Olympic team could bend, even slightly, to preserve a sincere belief, could the Army top brass not have done so here?
A lost officer and a lost signal
The loss in this case is larger than one career. The Indian armed forces may have lost a potentially fine officer. But, more importantly, the message the decision sends to minority soldiers is unsettling: that even when you attend the parade, stand with the unit, and show respect, your personal limit of conscience counts for nothing.
India’s military unity has never been built on majoritarian comfort. It has been built on trust. Sikh, Muslim, Hindu and Christian soldiers fought as one in 1965 and 1971, stood together in Kargil, and serve together today across insurgency zones. Soldiers from minority faiths should never have reason to wonder whether they will be asked to cross a line that their beliefs prohibit.
The courts may not have intended this message. The Indian Army may not have intended it either. But messages do not depend solely on intention.
The judiciary’s instinct to defer to the military is understandable. Courts lack the tools, experience and institutional knowledge to second-guess tactical or disciplinary decisions. Yet, it is not correct to say that courts have always stayed away. In the cases of women officers, the Supreme Court forced a fundamental rethink of long-standing military practice. It has intervened in recruitment rules, pension rules and promotion policies. Courts have reshaped the Indian Army before, when equality demanded it.
In this case, the issue was modest: a sincere religious objection to entering a sanctum during worship. The officer did not refuse duty, did not leave his post, and did not weaken the chain of command. He stood respectfully outside, visible to the men he led. The Court could have asked whether the Indian Army’s approach satisfied the test of proportionality, or whether a lighter touch could achieve the same purpose while respecting conscience. The judiciary had room, if it had chosen to use it.
The principle in Bijoe Emmanuel and Ors. vs State Of Kerala and Ors., where children who would not sing the national anthem were still protected because they stood respectfully, comes to mind. Justice Chinnappa Reddy reminded the nation: “our tradition teaches tolerance, our philosophy preaches tolerance, and our Constitution practises tolerance.” It is difficult not to hear those words echo in this case.
A lesson from Dreyfus
The parallel to the Dreyfus affair is not exact, nor should it be. But the warning it carries is real. France’s military, proud and strong, allowed itself to drift into prejudice one small step at a time. Victor Hugo warned that armies lose their edge when they lose their sense of justice. Even the strongest institution can fall into a pattern where ritual becomes rigidity and rigidity becomes exclusion. India must guard against that drift. The Indian Army is respected because it rises above communal and political divides, because its officers lead by example, and because it has never demanded that faith be abandoned at the barracks gate.
The most troubling part of this entire episode is not the Court’s judgment, but that the matter reached a court at all. This was a problem that the senior leadership could have solved with one conversation, one directive, or one thoughtful accommodation. Instead, the issue hardened. Positions froze. And the court became the battleground for something that should have been resolved within the walls of the regiment. The Indian Army’s greatness has always come from its ability to blend tradition with modernity, discipline with empathy, authority with fairness. In this case, that balance slipped.
The Kamalesan case offers a simple lesson. When duty meets conscience, the real test is not choosing one over the other but finding a way for both to coexist. The Court stayed within its lane. But the Indian Army, which has often shown large-heartedness and flexibility, could have shown it again here. A small accommodation would have strengthened trust, preserved discipline, and affirmed the message that every soldier, of every faith, stands equal in the uniform of India.
Justice Reddy said that “our Constitution practises tolerance”. We honour that practice not by forcing uniformity, but by understanding when uniformity need not be forced.
Sanjay Hegde is a Senior Advocate designated by the Supreme Court of India
Published – November 28, 2025 12:58 am IST
