The Delhi High Court has upheld the termination of a Christian Army officer who consistently refused to fully participate in weekly regimental religious parades, ruling that military discipline and unity take precedence over individual religious preferences within the armed forces.

A division bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur dismissed the petition filed by a Lieutenant of the Indian Army, who served as a Troop Leader, challenging his dismissal without pension or gratuity, as ordered on March 3, 2021.

The Court made it clear that the issue was not one of religious freedom, but of disobedience to a lawful command—an offence under the Army Act. "In the present case, the petitioner has kept his religion above a lawful command from his superior. This clearly is an act of indiscipline," the bench observed.

It further noted, “Our Armed Forces comprise personnel of all religions, castes, creeds, regions, and faiths, whose sole motto is to safeguard the country from external aggressions. Therefore, they are united by their uniform rather than divided by religion.”

The officer had argued that his regiment only maintained a temple and a gurdwara and that, as a Christian, he sought exemption from entering the sanctum sanctorum of the temple during regimental religious parades. Despite counselling from fellow Christian officers and a pastor who assured him that his participation in the ‘Sarv Dharm Sthal’ would not violate his religious beliefs, the petitioner remained firm in his stance.

The Court emphasized that while religious rights are constitutionally protected, military service demands a higher standard of cohesion and discipline. “As a Commanding Officer, the petitioner had the additional responsibility of fostering unity and motivation among his troops,” it said.

In its May 30 judgment, the bench lauded the dedication of soldiers serving in difficult conditions and emphasized that uniformity and respect for all faiths are essential to the ethos of the armed forces. It clarified that while regiments may have historically religious affiliations or war cries, these serve motivational, not sectarian, purposes.

The Court held that the Chief of Army Staff was justified in concluding that the petitioner’s conduct violated military ethos and found no arbitrariness in the dismissal order. Notably, it also observed that a court martial in this case could have harmed the secular fabric of the armed forces, given the sensitivity surrounding morale and religious sentiments within the unit.

"To a civilian, this may appear harsh or far-fetched, but the standard of discipline in the Armed Forces is of a different nature,” the Court said.

Finding no merit in the petition, the Court upheld the dismissal and concluded: "The petition is, accordingly, dismissed."