By Sujit Bhar
In a recent and significant judgment, the Delhi High Court upheld the dismissal of a Christian Indian Army officer who had refused to participate in weekly religious parades and rituals, which were part of his regiment’s traditions. The officer, commissioned in 2017, had persistently defied commands citing his personal faith, even after multiple counselling sessions and formal warnings. Ultimately, his conduct led to his termination from service without pension or gratuity.
When the officer challenged the dismissal, seeking reinstatement, the Court stood firmly by the Army’s decision, underlining that “unity is forged in uniform, not through religion.”
This decision is not just a reiteration of military discipline—it is a judicial reinforcement of the secular character of India’s armed forces, enshrined both in the Constitution and in the core ethos of the Indian military. At a time when sectarian ideologies are increasingly seeping into civil institutions globally, this verdict stands as a powerful reminder that the defence of a nation must rise above religious, caste or communal identities.
A CONCRETE FOUNDATION
The Indian Army, with over 1.2 million active personnel, is one of the largest and most diverse military forces in the world. Its ranks include Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains and atheists, all working side by side in combat and support roles. What binds these men and women together is not a common religion, but a common oath to the Constitution, to the tricolour, and to the service of the nation.
This is why the Delhi High Court’s emphasis on uniformity, unity and discipline above all else is critical. The Court recognised that military traditions, including religious parades—and not forced religious conversions or indoctrination—serve as unit-cohesion activities. These rituals are part of long-standing regimental cultures designed to build camaraderie and esprit de corps—not to promote or impose a particular faith.
When an individual in the military refuses to follow orders—particularly orders tied to the morale and discipline of a unit—it strikes at the very heart of military integrity. The Court clearly understood this nuance and chose not to entertain the argument that religious freedom, a right guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution, could be selectively invoked against military discipline.
India’s Constitution describes the country as a “sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic.” But few institutions reflect this ethos as organically and robustly as the Indian military. For decades, religious harmony in the armed forces has not just been an ideal—it has been practiced and enforced rigorously.
Regimental centres often have sarva dharma sthal (multi-faith prayer halls). Not just this; during operations, last rites of fallen soldiers are performed according to their respective religious customs, regardless of who is present. Army officers and jawans regularly celebrate each other’s religious festivals, not as a rule, but as a unit tradition.
In such an environment, religious exclusivism can be poisonous. It erodes trust, divides units, and ultimately risks the success of missions that require utmost coordination, selflessness, and sacrifice. The High Court’s observation that the Army must remain above personal faith is a bold assertion of this idea.
THE ESSENTIAL BALANCE
It is understandable to empathise with individuals who feel conflicted when personal religious beliefs seem at odds with institutional expectations. However, military service is not an ordinary profession. It demands absolute discipline, unquestioned obedience, and the subsuming of self-interest for national interest. This is true not just in India, but universally across armed forces.
In 2006, the US Army court-martialled a Muslim soldier, Hasan Akbar, who killed fellow soldiers, allegedly motivated by anti-war and religious sentiments. In a less extreme case, military dress codes worldwide strictly prohibit religious symbols unless they are part of approved attire (e.g., turbans for Sikhs in the Indian Army). Even then, such accommodations are always balanced against unit integrity and operational practicality.
In the Israeli Defence Forces, often a case study in military diversity due to its conscription of Jews, Druze, Christians and Muslims, religious or ideological refusal to follow orders is met with firm disciplinary action. In the British Army and the US Armed Forces, “conscientious objector” status can be claimed for religious or moral reasons, but such applications are evaluated under strict scrutiny, and most soldiers who claim it must exit service honourably, but voluntarily—not while violating commands.
THE PERILS OF RELIGIOUS DIVISION IN COMBAT
A military unit is not a debating society. During high-stress combat situations, even minor distrust can cost lives. If an officer publicly refuses to participate in long-standing regimental activities, it might embolden others to cite ideological reasons to flout orders. Such behaviour can create fissures in command chains, set dangerous precedents, and ultimately degrade the force’s capacity to operate effectively.
Imagine a scenario in conflict zones like Ladakh or along the LoC, where instantaneous obedience to commands is non-negotiable. In such moments, soldiers must not question whether an order aligns with their personal belief system; they must act in cohesion. The presence of sectarian mistrust or disobedience would be catastrophic.
This is why modern militaries treat such behaviour with zero tolerance. It is not an attack on religion, but a defence of unity.
LESSONS FROM AROUND THE WORLD
Here are some examples of how successful militaries across the world enforce secular conduct:
United States: While the US military allows some religious expression, overt proselytizing or refusal to obey orders due to faith is strictly curtailed. In 2010, an Army officer was discharged for refusing to deploy to Afghanistan, questioning the legality of orders under religious belief. He was stripped of rank and benefits.
France: The French armed forces operate under the doctrine of “laïcité” (state secularism). Any display of religious symbols or ideology in uniform is banned to preserve cohesion and neutral service.
Turkey: The Turkish military, historically secular, had strict prohibitions on religious expression. Even minor deviations were treated as threats to the chain of command.
These examples show that secularism in the military isn’t about oppressing faith—it’s about ensuring that the military remains loyal to the Constitution and not to personal ideologies.
India’s military has weathered communal riots, political upheavals, and wars—yet, it has remained apolitical and secular, refusing to act as an extension of religious or political ideologies. This neutrality is non-negotiable, and that’s why this High Court ruling matters so profoundly.
By siding with the Army and endorsing its disciplinary action, the Delhi High Court sent a clear message: secularism is not just a constitutional virtue—it is a strategic imperative. In a country as diverse as India, any compromise on this principle could unravel the fabric of the defence services.
This judgment is also a guiding light for civil society, where religious and political tensions often run high. It reminds us that national unity requires institutions to rise above narrow identities, and that the cost of failing to do so can be existential in times of war.
The Indian Army’s strength lies not just in its weapons or numbers, but in the cohesion and trust among its ranks. The Delhi High Court’s ruling reaffirms this truth: that no individual belief can supersede collective discipline, especially in the armed forces.
Secularism in the military is not about erasing religion. It is about ensuring that religion never becomes a wedge between comrades in arms. By standing behind the Army’s right to discipline an officer who refused to conform to this ideal, the High Court has bolstered not only military morale, but also the foundations of India’s secular democracy.
This ruling deserves to be remembered as a precedent that prioritised unity over division, duty over dogma, and the nation over the individual—ideals without which no military, or democracy, can survive.
The post Arms and the Faith appeared first on India Legal.