Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued before the Constitution Bench that Public Interest Litigations (PILs) cannot be permitted to become a vehicle for interpreting religious practices or alleging their violation by public authorities. He stressed that allowing such an approach would fundamentally distort the constitutional scheme governing religious freedoms under Articles 25 and 26.

Emphasising judicial restraint, Singhvi submitted that while PIL jurisdiction remains available, its threshold in matters of religion must be “ten times higher” than in ordinary cases. He cautioned that courts must be wary of entertaining petitions based on subjective assessments of whether a religious practice is “good” or “bad,” as this would shift the focus away from concrete rights violations.

He reiterated that the established constitutional framework requires a rights-holder either an individual or a denomination to challenge State action infringing religious freedom, with the State justifying such interference on limited grounds like public order, health, or morality. Expanding PILs into this domain, he warned, risks undermining both religious autonomy and the discipline of constitutional adjudication.