JUDGMENT K.T. Thomas, Ag. C.J. 1. Blessings of "God Ganapathy" were invoked through a special worship performed at the C.B.I. Office, Ernakulam on 27th January, 1995. This news got a flash in the print media. Appellant, an advocate, incensed by the said news and ignited by this sense of secularism approached this Court on the next Martyrs' Day (30th January) under Art.226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of mandamus to the Union of India to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the local Superintendent of C.B.I. According to the appellant, the conduct of the said officer of C.B.I. would amount to misconduct. 2. The Superintendent of C.B.I. (who is first respondent herein) has stated in a counter affidavit that when his office was shifted to another wing of the same building, he arranged a person to offer prayers for God's blessings, and in that ceremony no body was forced to attend, nor was any one prevented from participating in it. He also stated that the small amount needed for the worship was extended by him from his own pocket. 3. Learned single Judge dismissed the Original Petition on the main premise that first respondent can have his personal religious freedom and at any rate what he did for invoking God's blessings on an Suspicious occasion does not call for any interference under Art.226 of the Constitution. Undeterred by the dismissal of his writ petition, appellant has filed this appeal in challenge of the judgment of the learned single Judge. 4. Shri K.S. Madhusoodanan, learned counsel for the appellant, vehemently contended that the action of first respondent is a negation of the secular principles embedded in the Constitution and that he has committed misconduct warranting initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him. 5. Appellant seems to be entertaining a misconception that anything religious is antithesis to secularism and anything antireligious is synthesis to secularism,. No doubt, the quintessence of secularism is the aloofness of State activities from religious spheres. But it is to be noted that "secularism" is not defined in the Constitution. 5. Appellant seems to be entertaining a misconception that anything religious is antithesis to secularism and anything antireligious is synthesis to secularism,. No doubt, the quintessence of secularism is the aloofness of State activities from religious spheres. But it is to be noted that "secularism" is not defined in the Constitution. Justice O. Chennappa Reddi has observed that "secularism is one of those elusive words like democracy or socialism which every one thinks he know what it means and what it is all about but in fact what he really knows is only a version or facet of it." (Vide the book "Religion, Caste and the threat to Secularism" published by the University of Kerala). Inspite of such nebulousness, the fact remains that secularism is one of the corner stones of the Republican structure of India under the Constitution. It has been declared to be a basic feature of the Indian Constitution (vide Kesavananda v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461 and Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SC 1990). However, what exactly are the tests to understand the scope of secularism have not been exhaustively formulated or laid down whether by political thinkers or jurists or even the case law, yet much light has been thrown on the concept of secularism by various judgments of the apex court. 6. In the recent decision of a larger Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, their Lordships observed that "secularism is more than a passive attitude of a religious tolerance. It is a positive concept of equal treatment of all religions." (vide S.R. Bommai v,. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 1918 ). 6. In the recent decision of a larger Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, their Lordships observed that "secularism is more than a passive attitude of a religious tolerance. It is a positive concept of equal treatment of all religions." (vide S.R. Bommai v,. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 1918 ). "Secularism" is defined in Encyclopaedia Britannica as "the branch of totalitarian ethics, it is for the physical, normal and social improvement of mankind which neither affirms nor denies theistic problems of religion." M.C. Setalvad, one of the doyens of the legal profession and the first Attorney General of India, mentioned in his "Lectures on Secularism" that "the State shall observe neutrality in regard to all religions." Some norms to be followed in a secular society have been pointed out by the Constitution Bench in S. R. Bommai's case (cited supra) such as: (i) the State shall not espouse or establish or practice any religion; (ii) public revenues shall not be used to promote any religion, (iii) the State shall have the power to regulate any economic, financial or other secular activity associated with religious practice, (iv) every individual has an equal right of conscience and religion subject to the restrictions contained in the Constitution. In M. Ismail Faruqui v. Union of India ( AIR 1995 SC 605 ) another Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has observed that "the concept of secularism is one facet of the right to equality woven as the central golden thread in the fabric depicting the pattern of the scheme in our Constitution." 7. We have no doubt that secularism is not an anti religious doctrine inspite of its emphasis on absolvement of politics from religion and theocratic society is not the solitary antonym of secular society. Secularism as enshrined in our Constitution respects a person's right to believe in any faith and to practice any religion so long as such practice does not hinder public order or morality and health and so long as such practice won't interfere with another man's fundamental rights. It enables both religionists as well as nullifidians to maintain their respective view points. Neither shall be intolerant towards the other in a secular society. 8. It enables both religionists as well as nullifidians to maintain their respective view points. Neither shall be intolerant towards the other in a secular society. 8. This is a case where one person, no matter he holds a public office, believed that blessings of God in whom he has faith were necessary for commencing his official work when there was a shift of the office room to another place. He has not expended any amount from State exchequer for the said purpose. He did it honestly believing that such a worship would better the efficiency of his official function. We are at a loss to appreciate the contention that such conduct of the first respondent would amount to misconduct for initiating disciplinary proceedings against him. We, therefore, dismiss this Writ Appeal.