Singhvi: PIL should not become a vehicle for interpreting religious practice or its violation.

CJI: for maintainability of PIL, broadly principles have been laid down.

Singhvi: articles 25 and 26 has a much more higher threshold.

religion is a faith of millions, a third party is unable to find direct access to article 32 to change it

J Sundresh: can the court deciding without hearing millions of them

J Nagarathna: it should not be allowed because such a person who filed the PIL is not a believer

CJI: most difficult task is how to give a declaration that the belief of million people is wrong or erroneous

Singhvi-that is what happens in a PIL

arguments to continue.