The Rajasthan High Court recently dismissed petitions that challenged the planned demolition of several religious structures, including mosques, madrasas, and dargahs, located within a 50-kilometer range of the India-Pakistan border. The case, identified as Peer Mohammad Shah Jilani Dargah Samiti v The State of Rajasthan, was presided over by Justice Sameer Jain.
Justice Jain commended the Union government’s strategy to expand and rationalize the jurisdiction and operational capabilities of the Border Security Force (BSF), describing it as a strategic response to evolving security challenges. The court emphasized that claims suggesting a communal bias in these evictions or demolitions lacked factual support. According to the court, notifications were issued indiscriminately and did not target any particular community, underscoring that the matter was one of national security and regulatory adherence rather than religious discrimination.
Upon reviewing the evidence, the court found that the structures were unauthorized, as there was no compliance with the Rajasthan Religious Buildings and Places Act’s regulations for construction. Justice Jain noted that issues of title, ownership, and land use were still contentious and unsuitable for resolution under writ jurisdiction.
The court observed that despite being issued show-cause notices, the petitioners did not engage in the legal process, thereby forfeiting their right to claim a violation of natural justice through writ jurisdiction. Justice Jain articulated that in scenarios where state security is compromised, procedural formalities should be secondary to the necessity for protection.
The court further reasoned that due to the proximity of these properties to the international border, increased vigilance and regulatory control was essential. It maintained that in national security matters, strict adherence to conventional natural justice procedures is not always necessary, and a flexible, context-responsive approach is justified when supported by substantial evidence.
More Read
In this case, the court determined that adequate procedural compliance had been met and that no harm was caused to the petitioners, who opted out of participation. Consequently, the petitions were deemed non-maintainable and dismissed. Justice Jain asserted the permissibility of a pragmatic approach in national security cases, provided there is substantial justification for such actions.
In light of national security concerns, the court ordered the creation of a committee, including the district collector, superintendent of police, and a BSF representative, to review sensitive properties along the border. The committee is empowered to decide on eviction, dispossession, or demolition, based on the situation’s demands and available evidence. While principles of natural justice will not be entirely disregarded, their application will be adjusted to fit the case’s nature, the alleged security threat, and broader public interest.
Senior Advocate Vikas Balia represented the petitioners, while Advocate General Rajendra Prasad and Additional Solicitor General Bharat Vyas represented the State government and the Union of India.
