The court stated that the Indian Armed Forces are composed of personnel from diverse religious backgrounds, but their primary duty is to safeguard the nation. It asserted that military unity is forged through service and uniform rather than religious, caste, or regional distinctions.
Additionally, the court underscored the heightened responsibility of Commanding Officers to ensure that troops under their command have appropriate facilities to observe their respective religious practices while maintaining military cohesion and discipline.
In its ruling, the Delhi High Court reinforced the secular foundation of the Indian Armed Forces, emphasising that while certain regiments may carry names linked to religion or region, this does not compromise the institution’s neutrality. The court noted that war cries–often perceived as religious–are purely motivational, designed to foster unity and solidarity among troops.
The bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur also highlighted that the armed forces respect the religious beliefs of their personnel, as outlined in paragraph 332 of military regulations, which mandates that religious customs and prejudices be honoured.
Further, the court underscored the pivotal role of Commanding Officers in ensuring their troops have access to religious observance facilities while maintaining unit cohesion. It ruled that commanding officers must lead by example, prioritising collective unity over individual religious preferences, especially in combat and warfare scenarios.The Court has upheld the termination of an Indian Army officer who refused to participate in regimental religious parades, citing personal faith. The officer, dismissed without pension or gratuity, had sought reinstatement but was denied.Commissioned in 2017, the officer was assigned to a regiment comprising personnel from different religious backgrounds. He argued that the unit lacked a ‘Sarv Dharm Sthal’ for all faiths and requested exemption from entering temples during religious rituals.
The Army maintained that despite multiple counselling sessions, the officer persistently refused to attend mandatory regimental parades, undermining unit cohesion. After exhausting all options, the Chief of Army Staff deemed his retention undesirable due to misconduct.
The court noted that while some regiments bear religious names and use war cries with religious connotations, these elements serve purely motivational purposes and do not compromise the secular ethos of the Armed Forces. It stressed that Commanding Officers must prioritise discipline and unity over personal religious beliefs.
Recognising the heightened discipline required in the military, the bench ruled that courts cannot interfere with decisions necessary for maintaining morale and operational effectiveness. It concluded that the officer’s refusal to comply had disrupted traditional camaraderie, making his dismissal justified.
