Content
- The Kamalesan case
- Enabling a modern and future-ready labour ecosystem
The Kamalesan case
Why the Case Matters ?
- Involves the collision of two legitimate constitutional values:
religious conscience vs military cohesion and discipline. - Raises questions about the scope of Article 25, the limits imposed by Article 33, and the meaning of reasonable accommodation inside uniformed services.
- Touches concerns of minority confidence, institutional inclusivity, and the judiciary’s deference to the armed forces.
Relevance
GS2 – Constitution & Rights
• Article 25 (freedom of conscience) vs Article 33 (restrictions for armed forces).
• Judicial doctrine of proportionality and reasonable accommodation.
• Minority confidence, inclusivity in institutions, secular character of State.
GS2 – Judiciary
• Pattern of judicial restraint in military matters.
• Constitutional balancing: individual liberty vs institutional discipline.
• Comparative rights jurisprudence on conscientious objection.
GS3 – Internal Security / Defence
• Cohesion and discipline in fixed-class regiments.
• Role of rituals in unit bonding, morale, command acceptance.
• Ethical frameworks in military decision-making.
Practice Question
- In the Kamalesan case, courts prioritised institutional cohesion over individual conscience. Critically analyse whether such prioritisation meets the proportionality standard expected in constitutional adjudication.(250 Words)
Constitutional Dimensions
Article 25 – Freedom of Religion
- Protects belief and the right to abstain from practices that conflict with personal doctrine, as long as public order or duties are not affected.
Article 33 – Restrictions for Armed Forces
- Permits Parliament to curtail rights to maintain discipline and operational effectiveness.
- Curtailment must remain reasonable, purpose-linked, and proportionate, not absolute.
Core Constitutional Question
Could discipline have been protected without extinguishing the officer’s religious line, given that his conduct was respectful, narrow, and did not compromise duties?
Court’s Approach
High Court
- Classified refusal as disobedience of a lawful command.
- Accepted Army’s view that sanctum entry is integral to maintaining troop confidence in a fixed-class regiment.
- Treated the matter as disciplinary, not as a religious rights claim.
Supreme Court
- Declined to interfere, reaffirming long-standing judicial restraint in military internal matters.
Pattern of Judicial Reasoning
- Courts typically defer in discipline-related cases.
- They intervene only when larger equality/discrimination principles are at stake (e.g., women officers’ rulings).
Military Perspective
Cohesion in Fixed-Class Regiments
- Ritual participation is a tool of identity formation, morale, and mutual trust.
- A commanding officer must be “seen as one with the regiment”.
- Any exception may be interpreted as distance or non-alignment, even if unintended.
Operational Rationale
- Unit bonding is considered crucial for performance in combat, counter-insurgency, and high-stress deployments.
- Rituals—though religious in origin—serve organisational ends.
The Officer’s Position
Sincerity & Narrowness
- Attended all parades.
- Removed shoes, tied turban, stood respectfully with troops.
- Only objection: entering the sanctum during ritual worship, which Protestant doctrine considers impermissible.
Nature of Refusal
- No disobedience affecting operational duty.
- No disruption, no challenge to command.
- Closely aligns with the principle of respectful non-participation seen in landmark religious freedom jurisprudence.
Key Analytical Tension
Value A: Institutional Cohesion
- Discipline and unity are essential for operational readiness.
- Ritual uniformity sustains shared identity.
Value B: Individual Conscience
- Religious freedom protects both action and restrained abstention.
- Respectful abstention is generally treated as a legitimate claim unless it undermines core organisational functions.
This case falls precisely at the intersection of these two values.
The Accommodation Question
Was a Less Restrictive Alternative Possible?
- Standing outside the sanctum—visible and respectful—may have served the same purpose without violating conscience.
- No evidence that a small deviation would have harmed morale or command acceptance.
- Several global militaries accommodate narrow faith-based requests without loss of discipline.
Proportionality Insight
- Restricting a right is justified only if:
- legitimate purpose exists,
- restriction relates to that purpose,
- no equally effective but less restrictive option is available.
- This last step was not substantively examined.
Broader Implications
For Institutional Trust
- Uniformed forces thrive when individuals from all communities feel equally respected.
- A perception that conscience lines are irrelevant could affect confidence among minority personnel.
For Constitutional Culture
- Indian tradition emphasises tolerance and reasonable accommodation, not forced uniformity.
- A rigid approach risks moving from ritual to rigidity, and then, gradually, to exclusion.
For Civil–Military Balance
- Decision shows judiciary’s instinct for non-interference.
- Yet, previous rulings demonstrate that courts can reshape norms when fundamental values demand it.
Ethical Dimensions
Conflict of Duties
- Duty to obey orders
- Duty to remain true to conscience and personal integrity
Relevant Values
- Respect
- Empathy
- Inclusivity
- Responsibility
- Justice
- Institutional wisdom
Ethical Insight
- Discipline is strongest when combined with fairness; institutions gain, not lose, by accommodating sincere belief where operational impact is minimal.
Conclusion
The Kamalesan case highlights the tension between religious conscience and military cohesion. Courts upheld the Army’s disciplinary view under Article 33, prioritising unity in fixed-class regiments over an officer’s narrow religious objection. His respectful non-participation fit established principles of tolerance, raising questions about missed proportionality and accommodation. The episode signals the need for institutions to distinguish between discipline-essential uniformity and avoidable rigidity. The larger implication concerns trust and inclusivity within the armed forces—both vital elements of national strength.
Disclaimer : The views and opinions expressed here are based on the original article published in THE HINDU and do not reflect the official stance of Legacy IAS Academy. This content is provided solely for Academic purposes.
Enabling a modern and future-ready labour ecosystem
Why This Was in the News ?
- 21 November 2025: Government notified the long-pending Four Labour Codes, bringing them into effect nationwide.
- Marks the biggest overhaul of India’s labour regulatory architecture since Independence.
- Expected to influence formalisation, competitiveness, ease of doing business, worker protection, and India’s trajectory towards a “Viksit Bharat”.
Relevance
GS3 – Economy
• Formalisation of 643-million workforce.
• Reduction of compliance burden: single registration, unified definitions.
• Competitiveness & EoDB improvements; alignment with global value chains.
• Investment, productivity gains, MSME benefits, digital compliance.
GS3 – Employment & Labour
• Universal minimum wages, national floor wage, working-hour clarity.
• Safety, health and working conditions (OSH Code).
• First framework recognising gig and platform workers.
• Female labour force participation: night work, maternity protections.
GS2 – Governance
• Consolidation of 29 laws into four codes; major structural reform post-GST.
• Cooperative federalism challenges: State rule-making, harmonisation.
• Transparency in enforcement: algorithm-based inspections, decriminalisation.
GS2 – Welfare / Social Security
• Universal ESIC coverage, simplified EPF, National Social Security Fund.
• Extending benefits to unorganised, construction, gig/platform workers.
Practice Question
- The Four Labour Codes aim to balance worker protection with enterprise flexibility. Evaluate this claim in light of recent trends in India’s labour market, formalisation efforts, and future-of-work transitions.(250 Words)
Background Basics
What existed earlier
- 29+ labour laws enacted across different decades, covering wages, safety, industrial disputes, social security, contract labour, etc.
- Fragmentation caused:
- Multiple registrations
- Complex compliance
- Overlapping definitions
- Frequent litigation
- Weak coverage for informal workers
Reform pathway
- Second National Commission on Labour (2002) → recommended consolidation into 4 codes.
- Extensive stakeholder consultations (2015–2019).
- Codes enacted 2019–2020; implementation delayed due to COVID-19 and State rules.
The Four Labour Codes: Core Pillars
1) Code on Wages (2019)
- Universal minimum wages across all sectors.
- National Floor Wage introduced.
- Mandatory appointment letters.
- Time-bound payment of wages.
2) Industrial Relations Code (2020)
- Clear rules for trade unions, standing orders, and industrial disputes.
- Faster dispute resolution mechanisms.
- Balances flexibility and worker safeguards.
3) Social Security Code (2020)
- Universal ESIC coverage — no geographic limits.
- Simplified EPF processes.
- National Social Security Fund for unorganised, gig, platform workers.
- Streamlined cess for construction workers.
4) OSH (Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions) Code (2020)
- Unified safety, health, working conditions framework.
- Safety committees, periodic health check-ups, clearer norms on working hours.
- 48-hour work week clarified.
Why the Reform Was Needed ?
Structural reasons
- 643 million workers: one of the largest young workforces globally.
- High informalisation → need to extend protection.
- Changing nature of enterprises (MSMEs, gig economy, digital work).
- Complex labour compliance → deterred investment.
Recent labour market data (2017–18 to 2023–24)
- 16.83 crore jobs created.
- Unemployment rate fell 6% → 3.2%.
- Formal sector expanded (EPFO, ESIC enrolment growth).
Key Provisions & Their Impact
A. Worker Protection Strengthened
- Universal minimum wage and floor wage reduce exploitation.
- Mandatory appointment letters improve transparency.
- 48-hour week and clearer shift/work-hour rules enhance predictability.
- OSH Code elevates workplace safety, especially in hazardous sectors.
B. Social Security Expansion
- Extends ESIC and EPF to wider categories including unorganised sector.
- National Social Security Fund → centralised support mechanism.
- Benefits for construction workers simplified via digital cess payment.
C. Compliance Simplification
- Single registration, licence, and return → lowers compliance burden.
- Uniform definition of “wages” → major predictability gain.
- Decriminalisation of minor offences → industry confidence.
- Algorithm-based inspections → reduces inspector-raj.
D. Preparing for the Future of Work
- Recognises gig and platform workers for the first time ever.
- Workforce projected to grow from 1 crore (2024–25) → 2.35 crore (2029–30).
- Aligns with flexible, digital, platform-based labour ecosystems.
E. Boost to Women’s Workforce Participation
- Current female LFPR: 32.8% (ILO 2024).
- Labour Codes support women through:
- Equal remuneration
- Maternity benefits
- Night work (with safeguards)
- Broader social security coverage
- Expected to raise participation in manufacturing, logistics, gig work.
Strategic Economic Implications
Formalisation Push
- Clearer definitions and digital compliance encourage MSMEs to formalise.
- Higher formalisation → better productivity and access to credit.
Ease of Doing Business
- One of the most significant reforms after GST.
- Reduces litigation and administrative friction.
Competitiveness in Global Value Chains
- Predictable labour regime is essential for:
- Manufacturing
- Electronics
- Textiles
- Global supply chain integration
- Simplified industrial relations reduce disruptions.
Investment & Employment Generation
- Lower compliance burden + better predictability → attracts domestic and foreign investment.
- High-quality jobs expected in formal sector, logistics, manufacturing.
Implementation Challenges & Considerations
A. State-Level Harmonisation
- Labour is a Concurrent List subject.
- Successful roll-out requires States to align rules and thresholds.
- Variation across states may dilute uniformity.
B. MSME Preparedness
- Smaller enterprises may need capacity-building for digital compliance.
C. Gig Worker Social Security
- Funding model: employer contribution? aggregator levy? government support?
- Implementation needs clarity and robust digital platforms.
D. Enforcement Architecture
- Algorithm-based inspections must avoid opacity.
- States require trained manpower for ESIC/EPF expansion.
E. Worker Awareness
- Large workforce lacks knowledge about rights; outreach crucial.
Analytical Assessment
Strengths
- Long-awaited simplification of a fragmented system.
- Strong push toward balanced labour ecosystem: protection + flexibility.
- First framework in India recognising gig workforce.
- Supports national goals of formalisation and industrial expansion.
Weaknesses / Risks
- State-level readiness uneven.
- Risk of over-centralisation → flexibility needed for local contexts.
- Gig/platform social security needs financial clarity.
- Some trade unions fear diluted worker bargaining power in IR Code.
Opportunities
- Integrate workers into formal economy at unprecedented scale.
- Make India competitive for global manufacturing shifts (“China+1”).
- Expand female workforce participation.
Threats
- If States lag, dual regulatory regimes will persist.
- Poor enforcement will weaken protections and confidence.
- Gig workers may remain uncovered if funding architecture fails.
Conclusion
The Four Labour Codes notified on 21 November 2025 constitute India’s most significant labour reform in decades, replacing 29 laws with a unified framework. They strengthen worker protections through universal minimum wages, safety norms and wider social security while simplifying compliance via single registration, unified definitions and decriminalisation. The inclusion of gig and platform workers addresses the evolving nature of work. With India’s 643-million workforce and rising formalisation, these codes aim to balance protection with competitiveness, promote investment and improve women’s participation. Effective state-level implementation remains the decisive challenge for realising full benefits.
