NEW DELHI, Nov. 26 -- Underlining that soldiers cannot prioritise personal religious interpretation over the collective ethos of the armed forces, the Supreme Court on Tuesday came down heavily on a Christian officer of the Indian Army who had refused to enter the sanctum sanctorum of his regiment's "sarv dharm sthal" (place of worship for all faiths), and dismissed his petition challenging his termination. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi called the sacked officer a "misfit for the Indian Army" and a soldier who allowed his "religious ego" to override discipline, cohesion and respect for his own men. Remarking that his behaviour reflected the "grossest form of contempt and indiscipline", the bench added that this type of "cantankerous attitude is not acceptable in an armed force". Samuel Kamalesan joined the Indian Army as a Lieutenant in the 3rd Cavalry regiment in 2017. The regiment comprised three squadrons of Sikh, Jat and Rajput personnel. He was made the troop leader of Squadron B, which comprises Sikh personnel. In 2021, he was dismissed from the Army over his refusal to enter the sanctum sanctorum of a "sarv dharm sthal" despite repeated instructions from his commanding officer and also advice by a pastor that his faith would not be affected by entering the structure which had a gurdwara and a temple. Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the officer's faith was monotheistic and that he refused to enter the innermost area because the sarv dharm sthal housed a gurdwara and a temple. He argued that his client feared being compelled to perform rituals prohibited by his faith. The bench, however, found the explanation untenable. "He has demonstrated the grossest form of contempt and indiscipline. He should have been thrown out only on the basis of the behaviour he has shown," the bench observed. Noting that the officer was a troop leader commanding Sikh, Jat and Rajput soldiers, the court said his conduct was insulting to the sentiments of his men. "You are a troop leader and your troops comprised Sikh soldiers. They are in a gurdwara and this is how he conducts himself? The tone and tenor of his refusal is insulting to others." The bench added that the officer acted out of "religious ego", disregarding even the advice of his own pastor. "He does not even follow the advice of his own pastor. He has said he would not enter such a place even when it has a church. If this is the attitude of a troop leader in an armed force, the less said the better." When the petitioner argued that his constitutional rights were violated, the bench was categorical that Article 25 protects only essential religious practices -- something missing in this case. "You could have your personal belief but it was not an essential feature of your religion, as advised by the pastor. Essential features have to be respected, and likewise you have to respect the collective faith of everyone else as a troop officer," it said. The court stressed that the officer's personal interpretation could not trump discipline: "Your interpretation of your religious rights cannot supersede everything else. Where in your faith does entering a place of worship tinker with your religion?" The bench repeatedly pointed out inconsistencies in the officer's stand, stating that the petition appeared crafted to conceal facts. "This might be a cleverly drafted petition but conceals several key facts," said the court, questioning why he visited a pastor if he had no objection to sarv dharm sthals. On the argument that caste-based regiments undermined secularism, the CJI responded firmly: "All that the army has to go through and what they weather day in and day out, we are not going to comment on that. We should be very careful before we say anything about our forces. You have failed to respect the sentiments of your own troop members." Concluding that the officer's conduct breached the army's secular fabric and discipline, the bench said: "He can be good at several things but he is a misfit for the Indian Army. an absolute misfit." The court then proceeded to dismiss the appeal against the May 30 order of the Delhi high court holding: "We see no ground to interfere with the impugned order. The petition is dismissed."...