A Dangerous Precedent: When the Supreme Court makes a Religious Ritual mandatory
The recent Supreme Court judgment upholding the dismissal of a Christian officer for refusing to enter the sanctum sanctorum of a religious place during a weekly regimental parade is deeply troubling on several counts. India is a nation built on religious diversity, on countless customs, beliefs and personal practices. In such a country, to punish an officer for politely declining a ritual that conflicts with his belief sets a very uncomfortable precedent. The officer did not refuse duty, did not skip the parade, and did not disrespect the faith of his troops; he only refrained from entering a sacred inner space that, according to his faith, he believed he should not. How is that an act of indiscipline? In fact, one could argue it is an act of honesty: he was truthful to himself, to his faith, to his conscience, and even to his men and Nation, by not pretending to perform a worship he did not believe in. We have all grown up in a country where religious practices vary even within families and friend circles. Among my own Hindu friends and relatives, many eat non-vegetarian food but avoid it on Mondays or Thursdays. However strange it may look to someone else, they feel their God will be upset if they eat non veg on a Monday and will bring them or their family harm. Nobody mocks them for it. Nobody forces them to violate their belief. In so many government institutions, offices, and schools, there are masses, pujas or festivals conducted, and attendance is never compulsory. When we studied at Don Bosco High School in Panjim, in SSC, there was a farewell Mass which was organised before the Formal farewell Party before our 10th Boards, which, we were all clearly told was optional. Out of curiosity, many non-Catholic students, me included, attended this. The priest himself delivered a largely motivational sermon, understanding the mixed gathering. Those who chose not to attend were not penalised, nor were they accused of being “cantankerous” or unfit for the school community. Why should the armed forces, an institution meant to embody the best of the nation’s principles, follow such a harsh and narrower standard? The argument that the officer’s non-participation would somehow demoralise the troops is extremely weak. Soldiers are not so fragile that their morale collapses because their commanding officer stands respectfully outside a sanctum in which he does not believe. If anything, a leader who is honest about his beliefs commands more respect. What if he were an atheist? Should he be compelled to perform rituals he does not believe in, just to maintain a façade? We see politicians doing this all the time, rushing from temples to dargahs to churches during elections, pretending to be everything to everyone, only to discard ethics afterward. That kind of pretence damages institutions far more than honest personal conviction ever could. Are we not reminded of those Goan politicians who stood before God and vowed never to defect, only to later walk into the very party they had once condemned, betraying both the people who elected them and the sacred oaths they invoked? Officers should be judged on service conduct, competence, leadership and integrity, not on their willingness or lack of willingness to participate in rituals of a faith not their own. The Christian officer did not refuse duty; he refused worship. These are fundamentally different things, and no democratic, modern right- thinking nation should confuse the two. If he genuinely believed that worshipping a deity outside his faith would bring harm to him, his family, or even the nation he serves, and if he politely opted out without disrupting discipline, how can anyone else find fault with that? Faith is personal. Conscience is personal. As long as these do not interfere with professional functioning - and there is no evidence they did - his dismissal appears harsh, unjust and contrary to the spirit of India’s diverse character. No modern, forward-looking nation can afford to normalise such a practice. This judgment, therefore, is deeply flawed. It compresses the space for individual conscience and opens a dangerous door where religious conformity could be demanded in the name of discipline. In a country like India, this is counterproductive and entirely unnecessary. At a time when the Constitution explicitly calls upon us to cultivate scientific temper and progressive thought, it is troubling to see a judgment that effectively reinforces religious conformity as a condition for service. This is not the direction of a nation aspiring to reform; it is a slide into regressive expectations that have no place in a modern democracy. The decision deserves to be challenged before a larger bench because it risks becoming a precedent that weakens our constitutional promise of freedom of religion and freedom from religious compulsion. To each his own faith, and if someone has none, all the more reason to respect that too. That is the India we believe in. That is the India our institutions must reflect. Regards Sandeep Heble
