Honble PALISHIKAR, J. – Litter dated 10.2.97 written by one Dr. Shrimant Kumar Vyas, describing himself as a Journalist in Rajasthani Literature, seeks intervention of this Court by appropriate order to pervent taking of Deeksha of Jainism by one Kum. Kiran Tater because she is 16 years old. It is averred, such Deeksha can be taken by widows or old women, in relation to minors, it is impro- per and unnatural. Mr. Singhvi vehemently opposed the petition on all grounds. (2) In my opinion, making of such petition by an educated person like Mr. Vyas is un-healthy happening in the life of a progressing Country. India has a written Constitution, where practicing, of relaigion is conferred as a fundamental right on the citizens of India. Probably, present petition is only one in the entire country, filed as public interest litigation, to prevent exercise of fundamental right. No such petition can be entertained for such purpose. (3) The Constitution itself has enjoined a duty on the Supreme Court of India by Article 32 and on this Court by Article 226, to protect the fundamental rights and prevent its breach, voluntary or otherwise, by anybody.Of necessity, therefore, there cannot issue a direction to prevent exercise of a fundamental right . Article 25 of the Constitution reads thus :– `` 25. Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion. - (1) Subject to public order,morality and health and to the other provisions of this part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion. (2) Nothin ing this article shall affect the operation of any existing lawor pervent the state from making any law– (a) regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice; (b) providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institution of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus. Explanation I. The wearing and carrying of Kirpans shall be deemed to be included in the profession of the Sikh religion. Explanation II. - In sub- clause (b) of clause (2), the reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh., Jaina or Budhist religion and the reference to Hindu religious institutions shall be construed accordingly. Explanation II. - In sub- clause (b) of clause (2), the reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh., Jaina or Budhist religion and the reference to Hindu religious institutions shall be construed accordingly. (4) It, thus, confers as a fundamental right,a right on the citizens of India to practice any religion. Practicing Jainism is, therefore, practicing religion consequently, a fundamental right of every citizen who wants to profess Jainism. The only restriction that can be put on the right under Article 25 are those embodied under Article itself. That is to say, there can be a Legislation curtailing the right to profess a religion on the ground of morality, public health and hygiene. As of today, there is nosuch Legislation invoked in India, which prohibits practicing of any religion. In fact,practice of any religion being fundamental right,existence of Legislation to prevent exercise of that right must be rarity, as is in our Country.There is nothing in Jainism, or taking Deeksha of Jainism, which offends morality, public health or hygiene.By taking Deeksha by a girl is like a Christain girl becoming a Nun. There is no prohibition in a 16 year old girl joining Nunnery. How can there be a prohibition against a girl of 16 accepting Jainism ? Accepting Jainism by taking Deeksha is akin to the Thread Ceremony performed in high caste Hindus and it is after that ceremony that the child is known to belong to that particular caste (mostly Brahmins). There is no prohibition on this ceremony. I cannot see any reason why, therefore, there should be prohibiting in conferring Jainism on a minor girl in Jainism. It is simple propagation and practice of religion and no interference with this right is permissible under the Constitution itself. Consequently, entertaining of a petition in infringement of fundamental right would a judicial error, which no Court should commit. (5) I see no reason to interfere with the practice of any religion by any individual and machinary of Court can certainly not be used for such purposes. The Supreme Court has held in the case of S.P. Anand Vs. Shri H.D. Deve Gowda and others(1) that such public interest litigation should be entertained at the instance of only experts. (5) I see no reason to interfere with the practice of any religion by any individual and machinary of Court can certainly not be used for such purposes. The Supreme Court has held in the case of S.P. Anand Vs. Shri H.D. Deve Gowda and others(1) that such public interest litigation should be entertained at the instance of only experts. The Suipreme Court observed thus :- ``We cannot help mentioning that on issues of constitutional laws, litigants who can lay no claim to have expert knowledge in that field should refrain from filing petitions, which if we may say so, are often drafted in a casual and cavalier fashion giving an extempore appearance not having had even a second look. This is the impression that one gets on reading the present petition. It is of utmost importance that those who invoke this Courts jurisdiction seeking a waiver of the locus standi rule must exercise restraint in moving the Court by not plunging in areas wherein they are not well-versed.Such a litigant must not succumb to spasmodic sentiments and behave like a knight-errant roaming at will in pursuit of issues providing publicity. He must remember that as a person seeking to esponse a public cause, he owes it to the public as well as to the court that he does not rush to court without undertaking a research,even if he is qualified or competent to raise the issue. Besides, it must be remembered that a good cause can be lost if petitions are filed on half-baked information without proper reseach or by persons who are not qualified and com- petent to raise such issues as the rejection of such a petition may affect third party rights. Lastly, it must also be borne in mind that no one has a right to the waiver of the locus-staandi rule and the court should permit it only when it is satisfied that the carriage of proceedings is in the competent hands of a person who is genuinely concer- ned in public interest and is not moved by other extraneous considerations. (6) In such circumstances, the petition is liable to be dismissed. It is also in fitness of things that it is dismissed with costs. (6) In such circumstances, the petition is liable to be dismissed. It is also in fitness of things that it is dismissed with costs. But I again refer to what has been held by the Supreme Court of India :– ``We would have ordered the petitioner to pay the cost of this petition but we refrain from doing so on this occasion in the hope that he will exercise restraint in future, failing which he may in a similar or like case be visited with an order of cost. (7) Expressing the same hope, I do not wish to impose any costs. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.