Can a soldier refuse a regimental ritual on grounds of conscience? Can a Supreme Court judge politely skip an official conference because it falls on Good Friday? This op-ed reads the Lt. Samuel Kamalesan verdict alongside Justice Kurian Joseph’s Good Friday protest to ask a sharper question: is Indian secularism about enforcing ritual equality, or protecting individual conscience in a diverse republic?
Summary: How the SC Order Against Lt Samuel Kamalesan Overlooks the Genius of Indian Secularism
My main article, “How SC order against Lt Samuel Kamalesan overlooks the genius of Indian secularism,” has been published today in ThePrint, one of India’s leading e-news portals. You can read the full piece here:
This Substack summary provides background and context for readers who wish to understand the broader argument before exploring the full essay.
The article takes as its starting point the Supreme Court’s recent judgment upholding the dismissal of Lt Samuel Kamalesan, a young Protestant Christian officer of the Indian Army who refused to enter the sanctum of his regiment’s temple and gurdwara. While he participated respectfully in all parades and never disrespected any faith, he believed that physically entering another religion’s sanctum violated the First Commandment—“You shall have no other gods before me.” The Army viewed this refusal as a breach of discipline and collective ethos. The Supreme Court affirmed that perspective, holding that in the Army’s model of secularism, officers must take part equally in the diverse religious rituals that sustain unit cohesion and morale.
The article argues that while discipline is indispensable to the armed forces, the Court’s reasoning risks reducing Indian secularism to ritual uniformity, ignoring its deeper constitutional soul. Indian secularism has never demanded that individuals suppress conscience or conform ritually to practices contrary to their faith. Instead, it has sought to create a broad, accommodating space in which all belief systems can coexist without coercion.
To illustrate this, the article revisits the 2015 Good Friday incident involving Justice Kurian Joseph, who expressed discomfort at the scheduling of the Chief Justices’ Conference and a Prime Ministerial dinner on an important Christian holy day. His stand was a gentle reminder that state institutions must be mindful of plural sensitivities. The article notes that while Justice Joseph’s appeal was rooted in the very principle of secular fairness, he faced criticism similar to that directed at Lt Kamalesan.
Ultimately, the article contends that the true genius of Indian secularism lies in flexibility, mutual respect, and the protection of individual conscience, especially for religious minorities. By overlooking these dimensions, the Kamalesan judgment raises urgent questions about how institutions interpret secularism in practice.