Judgment :- 1. Though the original prayer asked for was different an amendment has been asked for and ordered in W.M.P. No. 30098 of 1992 on 21-1-1993 and the amended prayer is as follows: “For the reason stated in the accompanying affidavit it is prayed that this Honble court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other writ of order in the nature of writ directing the respondents not to participate in any “Religious Functions” inclusive of attending the temples, churches and mosques even for worship till the word “SECULARISM” is available in the “PREAMBLE” of our Constitution and pass such further orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances stated herein and thus render justice.” 2. The petitioner is a retired Tamil Pandit and seems to be a freedom fighter who participated in the freedom struggle. It seems the petitioner had functioned as Kanniyakumari District Secretary for Nadar Mahajana Sangam. It seems he is the General Secretary of “Podhujana Sevadalam” and alleges that he wants to protect India from religious fanatics whatever may be the religion and wants to see India as a secular State and for that purpose he wants the Government should set an example. In other words, the petitioner wants the President of India, Governor of the State, the Prime Minister of India and the Chief Minister of the State should not participate in any religious function in whatever may be the form. The petitioner alleges that even after 44 years of Independence the Government miserably failed to prove that India is a secular State. He alleges that now it has become an admitted fact that religion is a challenge to the nation and it is appropriate time that the respondent should act actively to everybodys satisfaction and it is their bounden duty also. According to the petitioner, the disturbance in India at Kashmir, Tamil Nadu and Punjab is all due to the fact that the Government is not giving effect to the mandate in the Constitution that India is a secular State. The petitioner alleges that though it is enshrined in the Constitution that India is a secular State it is not put in practice i.e., according to the petitioners cularism is not in practice. The petitioner alleges that though it is enshrined in the Constitution that India is a secular State it is not put in practice i.e., according to the petitioners cularism is not in practice. It is alleged that 70 per cent of the population are Hindus and temple is found everywhere and the religion has become a loud talk. The petitioner alleges that though he is a Christian he is honouring all other religions and unfortunately casteism is a great curse to our country. It is alleged that atrocities are being inflicted in the name of caste. The petitioner narrates certain incidents with regard to what happened to the struggle of untouchability in 1924 and about the incidents which took place in Triplicane during September, 1992. The petitioner also mentions about happenings at Kumbakonam during the last Mahamaham festival. As such the petitioner alleges that this court has got a moral right to safeguard the interest of the peoples as if the Government failed to do it and as such the prayer has got to issue to maintain India as a secular State as enshrined in the Constitution of India. 3. The petitioner argued very efficiently and vehemently in person in the regional language. As he had been a Tamil Pandit the petitioner argued his case and put forth his points very ably. 4. I have considered the contentions raised by the petitioner, who argued in person and also gone through the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. Unfortunately the petitioner, in my view, is under a misconception. It is seen that the Preamble of the Constitution of India reads as follows: “We, the People of India , having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic and to secure to all its citizens; Justice , social, economic and political; Libertyof thought, expression, belief, faith and worship and to promote among them all Fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation. In our Constituent Assembly this Twenty sixth day of November, 1949, do hereby adopt, enact and give to ourselves this Constitution.” Apart from this, Arts 25 to 30 also aim at “Secularism”. Arts. 25 to 30 clearly emphasise on the different aspects of religious freedom and liberalism. 5. In our Constituent Assembly this Twenty sixth day of November, 1949, do hereby adopt, enact and give to ourselves this Constitution.” Apart from this, Arts 25 to 30 also aim at “Secularism”. Arts. 25 to 30 clearly emphasise on the different aspects of religious freedom and liberalism. 5. It is worthwhile to refer to a passage in Seervais Constitutional Law of India third edition at page 897 to understand the right to freedom of religion: Arts. 25 to 28: “India is a secular but not an anti-religious State, for it guarantees the freedom of conscience and religion. Arts, 27 and 28 emphasize the secular nature of the State, for they secure to every person freedom from the payment of taxes for the promotion of any religion and freedom from attendance at religious instruction or religious worship in certain educational institutions. Art. 25 guarantees to every person the freedom of conscience and the free profession, practice and propagation of religion: and likewise, Art. 26 guarantees to every religious denomination, or a section of it, a right to manage its own affairs in matters of religion and the right to establish and maintain institutions for religious purposes. The freedom of religion is subject to limitations which will be considered in this chapter.” 6. Raju, J. in the case reported in Deavidar Kazhagam, represented by the General Secretary, K. Veeramani v. The Chairman, United India Insurance Limited. 1992-1-L.W. 1, has brought out succinctly what does the word “secular” or “religion” mean. The learned Judge has held at page 4 as follows: “What does the word ‘secular’ or ‘religion’ mean? Secularism does not mean irreligion or any thing anti-religious. To say so is negative secularism and neither positive nor constructive meaning of the same. Secularism merely implies ‘sarvadharma sambhava’, that is, a believer in secularism while remaining an ardent follower of his own religion looks upon all other religions as different pathways to the same goal-God. Thus, in substance, it is only a modern term for the old phrase ‘religious tolerance’ or ‘sarmamatha sammathee’. So far as the ‘State’ is concerned, it implies that our State does not identify itself with any particular religion. Thus, in substance, it is only a modern term for the old phrase ‘religious tolerance’ or ‘sarmamatha sammathee’. So far as the ‘State’ is concerned, it implies that our State does not identify itself with any particular religion. The debates in the Constituent Assembly show that “what was intended by the Constitution was not the secularisation of the State in the sense of its complete dissociation from religion but rather an attitude of religious neutrality, with equal treatment to all religions and religious minorities”. The contention of the petitioner proceeds upon an assumption that s ecularism means that the State must not associate itself with religion at all and must have nothing to do with it. The concept of American or Western Secularism that State should have nothing to do with religion at all and there should be a total non-association owes itself to the peculiar historical reasons of those nations and the renaissence in religion in the form of a fight against the authoritanism of the Church transcending even political boundaries. Ours is a land of Thyaga, Punya, Yoga, Sathya and Gnana with great heights and level of philosophical achievements and we have to us a modern India with a hoary and glorious, cultural and spiritual heritage of ancient India which preach, teach and help to practice the righteous way of living, They evolve a moral, healthy and peaceful code of conduct. Neither the founding fathers of our Constitution of India nor any of the provisions enshrined in the said document could be imputed with having done away with the philosophical and spiritual ideologies, and high values of life which is the core of the Indian polity and culture. Religion is also not theistic and Buddhism and Jainism do not believe in the existence of God or of any intelligent first cause. Religion and religious faith are not one and the same. Religion is also not theistic and Buddhism and Jainism do not believe in the existence of God or of any intelligent first cause. Religion and religious faith are not one and the same. Religious instruction has been construed to mean that which is imparted for including the tenets, the rituals, the observances, ceremonies and modes of worship of a particular sector or denomination.” Srinivasan, J., in Palanibaba v. Union of India represented by its Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi 1993-1-L.W. 11 has followed and approved at page 17 the decision of Raju, J., and has observed: “Nor is there any substance in the contention that the Constitution is secular in character and the President of India shall not visit any religious Head and charge the exchequer therefor, This Court had occasion to consider the meaning of the word ‘Secular’ as used in the Constitution of India in Dravidar Kazhagam, represented by the General Secretary, K. Veeramani v. The Chairman, United India Insurance Company Ltd. 1992-1-L.W. 1. It is pointed out in that case that secularism does not mean irreligion or anything anti-religious and it means only religious tolerance. It is also observed that in so far as the State is concerned, secularism implied that the State does not identify itself with any particular religion.” With respect I agree with the views of the two learned Judges of this court. 7. Considering the decisions of the two learned Judges of this court it is clear that secularism does not mean irreligion and anything anti religious but it means only religious tolerance. The State does not identify itself with any particular religion. That is all. In fact, I brought to the notice of the petitioner that people who belong to all religion without any particular religion Without any difference or caste or creed visit the Durga at Nagore, the shrine of Mary Mada in Velankanni and the shrine of Sri Ayyappa at Sabarimalai. These are all the examples of tolerence in religion. So what is wanted now is religious tolerance and not religious fanaticism. Unfortunately the petitioner has given examples of religious fanaticism in his affidavit. So there is no point in saying that the Constitutional functionary should not visit any temple or religious centre. They are entitled to visit to any religious shrine or temple as any other citizen does. So what is wanted now is religious tolerance and not religious fanaticism. Unfortunately the petitioner has given examples of religious fanaticism in his affidavit. So there is no point in saying that the Constitutional functionary should not visit any temple or religious centre. They are entitled to visit to any religious shrine or temple as any other citizen does. As it is pointed out by the earlier decisions the State do not identify with a particular religion. That is all. The petitioner has got confused with the meaning of secularism and thinks securalism means irreligion. It is well known that our country has got a very grand heritage and cultural background and which has got to adopt the rule of universality in diversity. I do not think the petitioner has a right to say that the Constitution functionaries as mentioned in the affidavit should not visit any temple or attend any function or any shrine which belongs to any religion. The relief asked for is wholly misconceived and it cannot be granted exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution, of India. There are no merits in this writ petition. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed.