Singhvi: on last issue- Whether a person not belonging to a religious denomination or religious group can question a practice of that denomination or group by filing PIL?

I have put 23 judgments in a chart all of them on articles 25 and 26 have come up through a ladder and initiated by an adherent of the religion who has challenges inroad through articles 25 and 26.

I am an individual and she is a religious denomination and and you have intruded by a religion or some form and I am the challenger. This must be clarified in this judgment, entire frame of the proceedings has been inverted and put upside down.

J Sundresh- this is what my sister has said

Singhvi: I am an individual who has articles 25 and 26 rights and she is a denomination who has article 26 right. either of our two rights respectively is intruded upon my learned friend's clients by legislation or delegated legislation, which I think is diluting my right, I go in a writ or suit. I am the challenger asserting my right and he is the defender showing I have rightly violated mr singhvi's right because I come under public order, health , morality, and mylords decide it. 23 cases in my chart and none like this. You don't have a challenger whose articles 25 and 26 right is affected, you don't have a legislation. you have a supposed PIL petitioner coming and saying that look I believe this religious practice is not good practice.

chap who has a right under articles 25 and 26 is not the challenger, the government is not the respondent. both of us, we and the government, are the respondents to the PIL's claim that accordingly to PIL collective conscience standard the religious practice is bad- this completely destroys the very concept

J Nagarathna- see, a believer will never question it. who is the petitioner