India a secular country, why PIL for prayer room at airport only for one community? Gauhati High Court

The Gauhati High Court on Friday expressed strong reservations about a public interest litigation (PIL) that called for a separate prayer room for Muslims at the Guwahati Airport. [Rana Saidur Zaman v. Union of India and ors] .A Bench of Chief Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Susmita Phukan Khaund grilled the petitioner, who appeared in person, as to what public harm would be prevented by constructing a separate prayer room.The judges also questioned whether any fundamental rights would be violated by not setting up such prayer rooms."What is the fundamental right in this regard? Our country is secular country, why prayer room for a particular community? What is the public harm being prevented by constructing a prayer room?...We are not on one community. There are designated spaces (outside). Those who are desirous, they can go there and pray," the Chief Justice orally observed..The petitioner argued that some flights are scheduled around the prayer times for Muslims."Then you choose a flight of your apt time. That is your choice, so you can complete your prayers. The airports give you a choice. Sorry, we are not satisfied. How can relief be sought for a particular community?" the Chief Justice replied. .The petitioner then pointed out that the rules framed by the Airports Authority of India provide for commercial establishments, but not prayer rooms."So, that is a commercial activity, that they will do. Prayer is not a commercial activity, it is a religious sentiment," the Chief Justice then said..The petitioner then questioned why the Guwahati Airport does not have a prayer room, when the airports at Delhi, Thiruvananthapuram and Agartala do."But does that make it a fundamental right and hence a violation? Where does it give the right to a citizen to enforce or seek a right or file a writ in this regard to claim that prayer rooms for a community should be constructed in all public establishments? Why only airports and not all public institutions then? You have got places to worship, go there and worship," the Chief Justice said..The petitioner, in turn, further argued that airports could demarcate spaces for prayer rooms when they already do so for smoking rooms. "Smoking rooms are there so that the smoking persons do not damage the health of other persons. So, it is to prevent public harm", the Chief Justice explained..The Court eventually refused to issue notice in the matter.However, after orally observing that the petitioner was not well prepared, it granted him two weeks time to put on record judgments and legal provisions in his favour, if any..India is secular; why is PIL on RTE Act only for cause of minority and not majority? Supreme Court