A Reformist Critique Of Samuel Kamalesan V. Union Of India: Balancing Secularism And Military Discipline

The Delhi High Court's judgment in Samuel Kamalesan v. Union of India (W.P.(C) 7564/2021), delivered on May 30, 2025, upheld the dismissal of an army officer for refusing to participate in religious rituals, prioritizing military discipline over individual religious freedom. The judgement needs a reformist critique, as the ruling reflects an outdated judicial mindset that privileges religious conformity over secularism and fails to accommodate the growing prevalence of atheism and secular trends in India. It advocates for a reassessment of religious practices in the Indian military, emphasizing secular alternatives that respect diverse beliefs, including non-belief, while maintaining operational efficacy

In Samuel Kamalesan v. Union of India, the Delhi High Court upheld the dismissal of Lieutenant Samuel Kamalesan from the Indian Army for refusing to fully engage in regimental religious ceremonies. Kamalesan, a Christian officer in the 3rd Cavalry Regiment, declined to enter the innermost sanctums of a Mandir and Gurudwara during parades, citing his monotheistic faith. Although he attended the events and remained in the courtyard, he sought exemption from rituals like puja, arguing they conflicted with his beliefs. The Army deemed this refusal an act of indiscipline, detrimental to troop morale, and terminated his service under Section 19 of the Army Act, 1950, and Rule 14 of the Army Rules, 1954. The court affirmed this decision, emphasizing the primacy of military discipline.

From a reformist perspective, this judgment raises significant concerns about the imposition of religious conformity in a secular institution like the Indian military. It highlights a judicial reluctance to evolve beyond religious frameworks, eroding individual rights and failing to adapt to modern societal shifts, including the rise of atheism. This article critiques the ruling's implications and calls for a secular reorientation of military practices that respects all belief systems—or lack thereof—in India's pluralistic democracy.

Prioritization of Religious Conformity Over Secularism

The judgment's mandate for participation in religious ceremonies as a military obligation effectively endorses religious conformity, which conflicts with India's secular state principles. Under Article 25 of the Indian Constitution, individuals are guaranteed freedom of conscience, encompassing the right to reject religion entirely (Indian Constitution). Compelling participation, particularly for atheists or those with minority beliefs, undermines the state's duty to remain neutral. By prioritizing religious traditions over secular governance, the ruling diverges from India's constitutional ethos, which champions individual liberty and secularism.

In an era where rational thinking and secularism are gaining traction, the military should exemplify inclusivity by ensuring no one is coerced into religious practices. This aligns with Article 51A(h) of the Constitution, which encourages citizens to cultivate a scientific temper, humanism, and a spirit of inquiry and reform. The judiciary must embrace this vision to foster a progressive, inclusive society unshackled by outdated religious mandates.

Overbroad Interpretation of Article 33

The court's reliance on Article 33, which permits restrictions on fundamental rights for armed forces personnel to ensure discipline, lacks scrutiny of whether mandating religious participation is necessary for military order. This expansive interpretation threatens not only freedom of religion but also freedom from religion, a right critical for atheists and secularists. The judiciary should have evaluated whether abstaining from religious rituals stems from personal conviction or is merely a tradition masquerading as necessity. A modern, evidence-driven reinterpretation of Article 33 is needed to balance military discipline with secular liberties.

Unsubstantiated Claims About Morale

The court accepted the Army's claim that Kamalesan's refusal undermined troop morale without requiring empirical evidence. In a diverse, increasingly secular society, mandating religious participation may foster division rather than unity. For instance, Scandinavian countries like Sweden and Norway, with significant non-religious populations, maintain civic and military cohesion without religious mandates (Pew Research Center). The judiciary should demand evidence to support claims of morale impact, recognizing that enforced conformity could alienate diverse troops.

Disregard for Rising Atheism and Secularism

The judgment's silence on the growing trend of atheism and secularism in India is notable. A 2021 survey by the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS) found that 6% of Indians, particularly urban youth, identify as non-religious, a trend echoed by the Indian Rationalist Association's observations of increasing atheist discourse. The military's insistence on religious rituals appears out of step with this demographic shift, risking alienation of a growing segment of society. Judicial recognition of this trend is essential to ensure policies reflect India's evolving ethos.

Risk of Discrimination Against Non-Religious Individuals

By upholding Kamalesan's dismissal, the ruling sets a precedent that may disproportionately harm atheists and minority faith adherents who resist dominant religious practices. An atheist officer, lacking a faith-based rationale, could face even harsher consequences, creating a discriminatory environment. With India's constitutional commitment to freedom of conscience, robust safeguards are needed to protect non-religious personnel, ensuring military discipline respects individual rights.

Failure to Explore Secular Alternatives

The judgment overlooks secular alternatives for fostering military cohesion, such as nationalistic ceremonies or team-building exercises. Countries like Sweden, where only a quarter of the population believes in God, and Norway, with accelerating secularization, demonstrate that inclusive, non-religious practices can sustain discipline (Pew Research Center). Adopting such approaches in India would align with Article 25 and Article 51A(h), ensuring the military welcomes diverse beliefs, including atheism, while maintaining unity.

Implications for the Military and Society

The judgment entrenches the belief that order hinges on religious conformity, sidelining secular pathways to cohesion. India's non-religious population, estimated at 2.9 million in the 2011 census and growing, reflects a fourfold increase from 2001, with 13% identifying as non-religious in 2012. Historically, Indian courts have sometimes equated rejecting faith with moral failure, a bias this ruling perpetuates, eroding India's secular foundation. Without reform, the military risks becoming an anachronism, out of touch with India's pluralistic ethos.

The judgment also highlights the Indian judiciary's slow adaptation to secular paradigms. Its prioritization of religious conformity over individual rights, coupled with its disregard for rising atheism, demands reformist scrutiny. The military must adopt secular policies that respect all beliefs, including non-belief, while ensuring discipline through inclusive, evidence-based means. The judiciary should embrace India's secular ethos, ensuring the armed forces reflect the diversity and dynamism of the nation they serve.

Author is Advocate-on-Record at Supreme Court of India. Views Are Personal. 

References

1. Pew Research Center, "The Future of World Religions: Population Growth Projections, 2010-2050" (2022).
2. Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, "Indian Youth Survey" (2021).
3. Indian Rationalist Association, "Annual Report on Atheism in India" (2023).
4. Constitution of India, Articles 25 and 33.