Singhvi: other provision of this part can't be a catch all phrase to reduce article 25(1) to a vanishing point-you have to be harmonious.

The fact that the right under Article 25 is made subject to the other provisions of this part does not and obviously cannot mean that any individual exercise of right under any other provision of part-III can extinguish the Article 25 right completely.

Nor can it mean that the exercise of rights under the other parts of Part-III can significantly reduce and attenuate these rights. The individual exercising other rights cannot either extinguish or dilute the right of the collective rights provided in Article 25.

Consequently, the only way to correctly interpret the constitutional language is to apply Article 25 on the one hand and other provisions of Part III in another in a harmonious, reasonable, and balancing manner, while always remembering the anchor provided by the other three broad heads of derogation, namely health, public order, and morality.

Article 25 original draft on 13 December 1946 said "subject to law and public morality". But on 29 March 1947, sub-committee on fundamental rights added "compatible with public order, morality and health". On April 3, 1947, the word compatible goes because its nowhere used in the constitution.