The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a batch of writ petitions challenging show-cause, eviction, and vacation notices issued to several mosques, madrasas, and dargahs situated within approximately 50 kilometres of the India–Pakistan international border, holding that the matter primarily concerns national security and regulatory compliance, rather than religious discrimination. Justice Sameer Jain observed that the actions taken by the authorities were part of a broader security framework applicable to the sensitive border region and could not be viewed through a communal or religious lens. The Court emphasized that while constitutional protections for religious institutions remain important, they must operate within the framework of laws enacted to safeguard the sovereignty and security of the nation.
The petitions were filed by various committees and individuals associated with mosques, madrasas, and dargahs located in Rajasthan's border districts. The petitioners challenged notices issued by the State authorities directing them either to vacate the properties or explain why action should not be taken against structures allegedly situated on unauthorized land within the notified border belt. They contended that the notices were arbitrary, violated principles of natural justice, and disproportionately affected Muslim religious institutions. They also questioned the legality of the proposed eviction and demolition proceedings.
A central feature of the Court's reasoning was the Ministry of Home Affairs notification dated 11 October 2021, issued under Section 139 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968. Through this notification, the Central Government expanded and rationalised the operational jurisdiction of the Border Security Force (BSF) in border areas, extending its powers up to 50 kilometres from the international border in certain States, including Rajasthan. The High Court observed that the notification reflected a conscious policy decision taken after considering prevailing security conditions, intelligence inputs, infiltration risks, smuggling, and other trans-border crimes affecting national security.
Justice Sameer Jain observed that administrative measures undertaken within the notified border zone must be viewed in light of these heightened security concerns. The Court remarked that the Union Government's decision demonstrated a proactive approach towards protecting India's territorial integrity and strengthening border management. Appreciating the notification, the Bench observed that it represented a bona fide exercise of statutory powers intended to address evolving security challenges and deserved judicial recognition as an important step taken in the larger public interest.
The High Court rejected the petitioners' contention that the action was motivated by religious discrimination. It observed that the material placed before the Court indicated that notices had been issued irrespective of religion wherever unauthorized structures were found within the sensitive border zone. According to the Court, the petitioners' attempt to portray the issue as one involving communal targeting lacked factual foundation. The Bench expressly stated that the dispute concerned national security and compliance with statutory requirements, and not discrimination against any particular religious community.
The Court also noted that, during the course of the hearing, the petitioners themselves conceded that where genuine national security concerns exist, competent authorities are empowered to take appropriate action in accordance with law. At the same time, the Bench observed that it would neither be prudent nor desirable to require the State to disclose sensitive intelligence inputs in open court proceedings, since such disclosure itself could compromise national security interests. Courts must therefore exercise restraint while reviewing administrative actions founded upon confidential security assessments.
Apart from the national security aspect, the High Court found significant deficiencies in the petitions themselves. It observed that many petitioners had failed to establish their legal standing (locus standi) or produce credible documents demonstrating their authority to represent the concerned mosques, madrasas, or dargahs. In several cases, no resolutions, trust documents, registration certificates, or other legally recognised authorisations were produced to establish the petitioners' connection with the institutions on whose behalf they claimed to litigate. These deficiencies, the Court held, substantially weakened the maintainability of the writ petitions.
The Bench further examined compliance with the Rajasthan Religious Buildings and Places Act. It noted that, according to the material before the Court, many of the religious structures had been established without obtaining the mandatory permission from the District Collector, as required under Sections 5 and 6 of the Act. The Court observed that the petitioners had neither obtained the requisite approvals nor even applied for such permission before constructing or maintaining the structures. Consequently, the authorities were entitled to examine whether the constructions complied with the applicable statutory framework.
The petitioners argued that they had not been afforded a fair opportunity to respond to the notices and alleged violations of Section 90A of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, contending that the statutory procedure governing eviction proceedings had not been properly followed. They maintained that adequate show-cause notices had not been served and that meaningful personal hearings had not been granted before initiating coercive measures. These submissions were advanced as constituting violations of the principles of natural justice.
While acknowledging that adherence to due process remains an important constitutional requirement, the High Court concluded that the circumstances of the present case did not warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Bench observed that the authorities had acted within the framework of the applicable statutory provisions and in furtherance of legitimate security objectives. It therefore declined to invalidate the notices merely on the basis of the allegations advanced by the petitioners, particularly when larger public interest considerations relating to border security were involved.
The judgment highlights the delicate constitutional balance between religious freedom under Articles 25 and 26 and the State's obligation to protect national security, public order, and territorial integrity. While religious institutions enjoy constitutional protection, those rights are expressly subject to public order and other constitutional limitations. The Court's reasoning reflects the principle that administrative measures taken uniformly for legitimate security purposes do not automatically become unconstitutional merely because religious institutions are among those affected.
The ruling is also significant for its observations regarding judicial review of executive decisions based upon security considerations. The Court reiterated that policy decisions founded upon intelligence assessments and border management requirements ordinarily deserve judicial deference unless shown to be arbitrary, mala fide, or contrary to law. Courts should avoid substituting their own assessment for that of specialised security agencies in matters directly affecting national security, especially where disclosure of sensitive operational information could itself create security risks.
By dismissing the writ petitions, the Rajasthan High Court has effectively allowed the authorities to continue proceedings initiated under the impugned notices in accordance with law. However, the judgment does not dispense with statutory procedural safeguards wherever they are applicable, and any further action must continue to conform to the relevant legal framework governing land administration, border regulation, and religious structures.
In conclusion, the Rajasthan High Court held that the eviction proceedings concerning certain mosques, madrasas, and dargahs located within the 50-kilometre Indo–Pakistan border belt involve issues of national security rather than religious discrimination. Finding no sufficient grounds to interfere with the notices issued by the authorities, the Court upheld the administrative action while emphasizing the State's constitutional duty to protect national security and maintain effective control over sensitive border regions. The judgment reinforces that constitutional freedoms must be harmonised with legitimate security measures undertaken in the larger public interest.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.