The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to entertain a plea filed by a Christian Indian Army soldier who was terminated from service for his refusal to participate in collective religious practices conducted by his entire regiment.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi also remarked that the soldiers' behaviour reflected gross indiscipline, rendering them absolute misfits for the army.
After hearing arguments from Senior Advocate Gopal Sankarnarayanan appearing for the petitioner soldier, the Court upheld his termination, as had been ordered earlier by Delhi High Court.
The Christian army man had moved the apex court challenging the Delhi High Court's decision to dismiss his plea against his termination from the army. While rejecting his plea, the Delhi High Court had reasoned that the said petitioner kept his religion above his superiors' lawful command.
During the hearing at the apex court today, Senior counsel Gopal Sankarnarayanan defended his client's conduct by arguing that all his client did was to refuse to enter the sanctum sanctorum of a Hindu temple and of a Gurdwara, along with the rest of his troops that he commanded.
The petitioner-soldier, who is otherwise very disciplined and has a clean record since he joined service six years ago, only abstained from participating in religious activities that he thought violated his religious conscience, the senior lawyer submitted.
However, the apex court, not impressed by the petitioner-soldiers' conduct, was of the view that there is a huge responsibility that rests on the shoulders of the Indian army and that the Court has to be very careful while it considers pardoning such misconduct.
Ultimately, the apex court stated that the petitioner's failure to participate in religious activities undertaken by the entire regiment constitutes an insult to the other members of the troop whom he was supposed to be leading.
Being a commander, he ought not to have insulted other cadets in the troop by such conduct, and instead, he should have led from the front, the Court said.
The Court thus rejected his plea and upheld his termination.
(Except for the headline, this article has not been edited by FPJ's editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)
