Secularism Under Command: The Jurisprudence of Discipline and Conscience in India’s Military Constitutionalism

Abstract

When Lieutenant Samuel Kamalesan declined to enter his regiment’s sarva dharma sthal during mandatory parades, citing his Christian beliefs, the Delhi High Court and Supreme Court supported his dismissal under Article 33. They prioritized military discipline as a constitutional necessity over the religious freedoms outlined in Article 25. This strict approach lacks proportionality and highlights the conflict between India’s sarva dharma sambhava secularism and the needs of the armed forces, which risks forcing a blending of beliefs that goes against the fundamental principle of neutrality.
By examining Articles 25 and 33 alongside cases like Prithi Pal Singh Bedi1 and S.R. Bommai2, this paper compares India’s restrictive position to more accommodating models such as the U.S. DoD 1300.17 chaplaincy, UK JSP 983 opt-outs, Israel’s IDF exemptions, and the ECHR’s Kalaç v. Turkey (1997)3 proportionality. The paper suggests amendments to the Army Act to include exemptions, secular training mandates, and judicial standards based on Modern Dental College4 to balance individual conscience with group cohesion.
By rethinking faith as a form of pluralistic strength, the study traces the development of military constitutionalism. While discipline remains essential, it should allow for specific accommodations to prevent overshadowing the core values of the Republic. Kamalesan does not seek to eliminate rights while in uniform, but rather to integrate them in a way that fortifies security through a commitment to constitutional principles.