The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed a plea filed by an Army officer of Christian faith, who challenged his termination from service for refusing to participate in weekly regimental religious parades. 

A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi said it saw no reason to interfere with the Delhi High Court’s earlier decision upholding his dismissal.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for officer Samuel Kamalesan, argued that his client faced action for only one alleged act of disobedience -- refusing to enter the inner sanctum of a temple at his posting. He said that the officer had participated in ceremonies at places where there were “sarva dharma sthals” (common religious places), but the location in question had only a temple and a gurdwara.

“Is this sort of cantankerous conduct permissible in a disciplined force?” CJI Kant asked during the hearing.

Sankaranarayanan said the officer simply stood outside the temple because entering the sanctum “would be against his Christian faith". He added, “He is not a cantankerous man. He is a disciplined man in all other respects.”

CJI Kant said the officer’s conduct sent the wrong message to the soldiers he commanded. “What kind of message he has been sending... he should have been thrown out for this only... grossest kind of indiscipline by an army official,” CJI Kant remarked.

When the counsel argued that the officer retained his right to religion under Article 25 of the Constitution, Justice Bagchi pointed out that even a pastor had advised that entering the sanctum would not violate Christian tenets. Sankaranarayanan clarified that the pastor’s view was given in the context of a Sarva Dharma Sthal, not a temple.

CJI Kant also questioned the officer’s conduct at the gurdwara. “Gurudwara is one of the most secular places. The manner in which he is behaving, is he not insulting the other religions? Religious ego such high that he does not care about others?”

Sankaranarayanan said that Kamalesan was willing to enter the sanctum as long as he was not required to perform rituals. He argued that the issue arose due to one superior officer who “insisted” that Kamalesan perform ceremonial duties. “Entry has never been a problem, conducting the ceremony can't be forced on me,” he said.

The counsel maintained that the officer objected only to being made to worship a deity: “I cannot be forced to worship a deity. The Constitution permits that much freedom.”

However, the Bench noted that he had also refused to enter the ‘sarva dharma sthal’ and stressed that Article 25 protects only essential religious practices, not every sentiment.

“Where in Christian faith is entering the temple or another religious place barred?” Justice Bagchi asked. Sankaranarayanan replied, “The first commandment -- thou shall not worship another god.”

The Bench observed that leaders in uniform must set an example. “You are insulting your troops,” CJI Kant said. Justice Bagchi added, “You can't have your private understanding of what your religion permits. That too in uniform.”

When the Bench indicated it would dismiss the petition, the counsel asked for a reduction in penalty. The request was rejected. “Indian army is known for its secular approach... You have failed to respect the sentiments of your own soldiers,” the CJI said.

“This will send a wrong message,” the counsel said as the order was being dictated. “This will send a strong message,” CJI Kant replied.