Latest news with #SamuelKamalesan
Mint
2 days ago
- Politics
- Mint
Armed forces ‘united' by uniform' not divided by ‘religion': Delhi High Court
The armed forces comprise of personnel of allreligions and castes, they are 'united by their uniform' and undivided by their religion, the Delhi High Court made this comment recently while upholding the termination of a Christian Indian Army Officer who refused to participate in religious parades. The termination order makes it clear that officer, Samuel Kamalesan, was resolute in his decision of not attending religious parades citing personal religious beliefs, which was corroborated by his Commanding Officer, said a division bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur. It also said that Kamalesan was terminated on the basis of his conduct and its impact on military discipline and unit cohesion, rather than solelyon the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) ratings. 'Our Armed Forces comprise of personnel of allreligions, castes, creeds, regions, and faiths, whose sole motto is to safeguard the country from external aggressions, and, therefore, they are united by their uniform rather than divided by their religion, caste,or region,' the Delhi High Court said in its order. 'The Commanding Officers are to lead by example and not by division; and by placing the cohesion of the Unit above individual religious preferences, particularly when commanding troops who they will lead in combat situations and war,' the Court said. Acknowledging the dedication of military personnel who guard India's borders day and night in adverse conditions, the court said the ethos of Indian armed forces places nation before self and certainly nation before religion. Kamalesan has filed a plea in the Delhi High Court, challenging his termination order and dismissal from the Indian Army without pension and gratuity. He has also sought reinstatement in service. Kamalesan was commissioned in the Indian Army in March 2017 in the rank of a Lieutenant in the 3rd Cavalry Regiment, which comprises of 3 squadrons of Sikh, Jat, and Rajput personnel. He was appointed as the Troop Leader of Squadron B which comprises of Sikh personnel.
Indian Express
3 days ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
Delhi HC upholds dismissal of Christian officer from Army, says ‘keeping religion over superior's command is act of indiscipline'
The Delhi High Court has refused to set aside the dismissal of a Christian officer of the Indian Army who had abstained from attending a pooja held as part of the regimental parade. The court held that commanding officers are to lead by example, placing unit cohesion above individual religious preferences. Samuel Kamalesan was commissioned into the Indian Army on March 11, 2017, in the rank of a lieutenant in the 3rd Cavalry Regiment, which comprises three squadrons of Sikh, Jat, and Rajput personnel. He was made the troop leader of Squadron B, which comprises Sikh personnel. It was his case that his regiment maintained only a mandir and a gurudwara for its religious needs and parades, and not a 'sarv dharm sthal' (all-religion site), which would serve people of all faiths. He also highlighted that the term 'sarv dharm sthal' is not used in the regiment, which otherwise refers to the weekly religious parades as 'mandir gurudwara parade'. He also said there was no church on the premises. In its May 30 order, the court also held that keeping religion above a lawful command from a superior was 'clearly an act of discipline'. In June 2017, after he respectfully refused the regiment's commandant's instruction to enter the inner sanctum sanctorum and participate in the pooja during one of the weekly religious parades, as a mark of respect, as well as the fact that his monotheistic protestant Christian faith did not permit him to do so, he claims to have started facing 'extreme disciplinary action', including being passed over for promotions and training courses, and ultimately his dismissal in 2021. Kamlesan claimed that his Annual Confidential Report (ACR) for 2017 and 2018 initiated by the regiment commandant 'contained adverse remarks over his religious beliefs'. To establish this argument, Kamalesan also pointed out that with a change in the commandant in June 2019, his ACR improved. In January 2019, disciplinary action against him was initiated with the issuance of a showcause notice for abstaining from pooja and he was finally terminated on March 3, 2021. The Centre argued that Kamalesan had failed to attend the regimental parades despite multiple attempts by the commandant and other officers to explain the importance of regimentation. It claimed that 'troops derive motivation, pride, and generate their war cry from devotional practices to a deity, and when an officer distances himself from these practices, it adversely affects the morale of the troops, undermining regimentation, cohesion, and unity during combat'. The Centre had stressed that 'this is an essential professional responsibility and military duty of the petitioner and not a religious obligation.' A division bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur, while upholding the dismissal, reasoned in its order, '…while there can be no denial of the fact that the petitioner has the right to practice his religious beliefs, however, at the same time, being the Commanding Officer of his troops, he carries additional responsibilities as he has to not only lead them in war but also has to foster bonds, motivate personnel, and cultivate a sense of belonging in the troops…. In the present case, the question is not of religious freedom at all; it is a question of following a lawful command of a superior…In the present case, the petitioner has kept his religion above a lawful command from his superior. This clearly is an act of indiscipline.' Noting that the standard of discipline required for the armed forces is different, the bench observed, 'The motivation that is to be instilled in the troops may necessitate actions beyond ordinary civilian standards…It is for the Armed Forces and the military leadership to determine what actions they feel are important for its Commanding Officers to take in order to effectively motivate the troops under their command, and what may act as a demotivating factor for the Forces or to the bond and unflinching command that the Commanding Officer must yield over the troops. The Courts cannot second-guess the same.' 'The petitioner's refusal to fully participate in weekly Regimental religious parades, despite counseling at multiple levels of command and multiple opportunities being given to him for compliance, demonstrates an unwillingness to adapt to the requirements of military service and the Armed Forces…While we recognize the importance of religious freedom, the petitioner's position as a Commanding Officer required him to prioritize unit cohesion and the morale of his troops. His persistent refusal to fully participate in weekly regimental religious parades, despite extensive counseling and opportunities for compliance, justified the action taken by the respondent,' the court held. Upholding the Army's decision to not conduct a court martial before his dismissal from service, the bench held, 'As the religious sentiments and the morale of the troops were in question, the same made a formal Court Martial proceedings unsuitable for resolution. Therefore, in the specific context of military discipline and the unique circumstances of the present case involving religious beliefs and regimental cohesion, the Chief of Army Staff's satisfaction that conducting a Court Martial would be both inexpedient and impracticable, given the sensitive nature of the religious issue, appears find that in such circumstances, a Court Martial might have led to unnecessary controversies, which could be detrimental to the secular fabric of the Armed Forces' The order further records the bench's observation that, 'While Regiments in our Armed Forces may historically bear names associated with religion or region, this does not undermine the secular ethos of the institution, or of personnel who are posted in these regiments. There are also War Cries which, to an outsider, may sound religious in nature, however, they serve a purely motivational function, intended to foster solidarity and unity amongst the troops…A higher and heightened responsibility is cast on Commanding Officers to ensure that troops under their command are provided with facilities, when required, to observe their respective religious practices. The Commanding Officers are to lead by example and not by division; and by placing the cohesion of the Unit above individual religious preferences, particularly when commanding troops who they will lead in combat situations and war.'
Time of India
3 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Delhi high court upholds Army officer's termination for refusing to attend religious parade
Representative image NEW DELHI: Delhi high court has upheld the 2017 termination of an Army officer who refused to participate in regimental weekly religious parades on the grounds that he belonged to the Christian faith. Samuel Kamalesan had challenged his dismissal without pension and gratuity, and sought reinstatement in service. In a May 30 order, a division bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur said: "Our armed forces comprise personnel of all religions, castes, creeds, regions and faiths, whose sole motto is to safeguard the country from external aggressions... They are united by their uniform rather than divided by their religion, caste or region. " 'Kamalesan's behaviour was against secular norms of Army' Kamalesan was commissioned in Army in March 2017 as a lieutenant in the 3rd Cavalry Regiment, which comprises three squadrons of Sikh, Jat and Rajput personnel. He was made the troop leader of Squadron B, which comprises Sikh personnel. In his plea, Kamalesan stated that his regiment maintained only a mandir and a gurdwara for its religious needs and parades, and not a sarv dharm sthal, which would serve persons of all faiths. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like "허리협착증" 통증으로 걷기 힘들 때 비수술 보존 치료로 회복 가능! ort02a 지금 문의 Undo He noted that there was no church on the premises. The bench observed that while regiments in the armed forces may historically bear names associated with religion or region, it does not undermine the secular ethos of the institution or of personnel posted in these regiments. "There are also war cries which, to an outsider, may sound religious in nature; however, they serve a purely motivational function, intended to foster solidarity and unity among the troops. At the same time, the armed forces also give due respect to the religious beliefs of their personnel," the bench noted. HC observed that Kamalesan kept his religion above a lawful command from his superior, which was clearly an act of indiscipline. "While, to a civilian, it may appear harsh and even sound far-fetched, the standard of discipline required for the armed forces is different," it said. The bench stated the termination order specifically noted that Kamalesan's undisciplined behaviour was against all secular norms of Indian Army and adversely affected the traditional camaraderie between officers and troops of the regiment. Noting that Army organised several counselling sessions for Kamalesan, the court concluded that the decision of termination was taken after careful consideration of the specific circumstances of the case and potential consequences of different courses of action.
News18
3 days ago
- Politics
- News18
Delhi HC Upholds Dismissal Of Christian Indian Army Officer Who Shunned Religious Parades
Last Updated: Samuel Kamalesan had argued that he accompanied his troops to the mandir and gurdwara in weekly parades and festivals, seeking exemption only from entering the innermost sanctum The Delhi High Court has confirmed the dismissal of a commanding officer in the Indian Army, Samuel Kamalesan, who consistently refused to participate in regimental weekly religious parades due to his Christian faith, despite multiple counselling sessions and opportunities provided by his superiors. Kamalesan challenged his termination and the denial of pension and gratuity, arguing that he had accompanied his troops to the mandir and gurdwara during weekly parades and festivals. He sought exemption only from entering the innermost sanctum during rituals, citing respect for his monotheistic Christian beliefs and his troops' sentiments. His plea highlighted that the regiment maintained only a mandir and a gurdwara for its religious needs, not a 'Sarv Dharm Sthal" for all faiths. The court noted that the dismissal was based on his conduct and its negative impact on military discipline and unit cohesion, not solely on his Annual Confidential Report (ACR) ratings. The HC emphasised the dedication of armed forces personnel and their ethos of placing the nation before self and religion. It observed that the armed forces are united by their uniform, not divided by religion, caste, or region, and commanding officers have a higher responsibility to ensure their troops can observe their religious practices. Commissioned as a lieutenant in March 2017, Kamalesan served in the 3rd Cavalry Regiment, which includes Sikh, Jat, and Rajput personnel. He led a squadron primarily composed of Sikh soldiers and noted the absence of a Sarv Dharm Sthal, or church, on the premises. Kamalesan claimed regular attendance at the mandir and gurdwara but sought to avoid the inner temple sanctum during rituals. The respondent argued that his consistent non-attendance at regimental parades was despite efforts to explain their significance. The Chief of Army Staff reviewed the records and deemed his retention undesirable due to misconduct. The court dismissed the plea, underscoring the secular principles of the armed forces, despite regimental names and war cries that might appear religious to outsiders. It respected the religious beliefs of personnel but stressed the higher standard of discipline required in the armed forces. The HC ruled that Kamalesan's prioritisation of his religion over a lawful command constituted indiscipline. It underscored that the armed forces and military leadership, not the courts, determine necessary actions for effective command and troop motivation. The termination order highlighted Kamalesan's behaviour as contrary to the Indian Army's secular ethos and detrimental to officer-troop camaraderie essential in combat. The court concluded that a court-martial trial for Kamalesan's misconduct was impractical due to the sensitive nature involving religious beliefs and upheld the disciplinary action taken against him. First Published:
