National Security: Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Pleas Challenging Eviction Notices To Mosques, Madrasas & Dargahs Near Indo-Pak Border
The Bench held that the principles of natural justice may be suitably tailored where national security is involved, directed constitution of district-level committee including BSF representative to decide individual cases.
The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a batch of writ petitions challenging show-cause and eviction notices issued to mosques, madrasas, dargahs and individuals for allegedly unauthorised religious structures situated within a 0–50 kilometre belt from the Indo-Pak international border. It held that the attempt to attribute a communal colour to the impugned action is wholly misplaced as the notices were issued across the board, without reference to any particular community, wherever structures are found to be unauthorized and situated within the sensitive border belt.
The Bench held that while principles of natural justice cannot be wholly dispensed with, their application may be suitably curtailed where national security considerations are genuinely at stake, and directed that a Committee comprising the District Collector, Superintendent of Police, and a representative of the Border Security Force be constituted to examine each affected property individually before any final action is taken.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sameer Jain observed, “…the attempt to attribute a communal colour to the impugned action is wholly misplaced and devoid of factual foundation. The material placed on record indicates that notices have been issued across the board, without reference to any particular community, wherever structures are found to be unauthorized and situated within the sensitive border belt. Thus, it has to be made cautiously unambiguous that the issue at hand is one of national security and regulatory compliance, and not of religious discrimination. Moreover, during the course of hearing, the petitioners themselves conceded that in situations involving a threat to national security, appropriate action may be undertaken by the competent authorities. At the same time, it is neither prudent nor desirable to disclose sensitive intelligence inputs in open proceedings, as such disclosure may synonms itself compromise security interests”.
Senior Advocate Vikas Balia appeared for the petitioners Rajendra Prasad, Advocate General appeared for the respondents.
The petitions, filed by various mosques, madrasas, dargahs and individuals across the Jaisalmer, Barmer and Bikaner districts, challenged show-cause and vacation notices issued under Section 90A and 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 and Sections 20, 22, 23 and 24 of the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954, alleging unauthorised occupation of government land and construction without permission within the sensitive border belt.
The notices followed a declaration by the Union Home Minister on June 14, 2026 that structures within 15 kilometres, subsequently extended to 50 kilometres, of the international border would be subject to eviction on national security grounds. The petitioners contended that several structures in the belt had already been demolished, that notices had been served through improper modes such as chaspa (affixation) rather than registered post, that no meaningful hearing had been afforded, and that the action bypassed the Supreme Court's directions in In Re: Directions in the Matter of Demolition of Structures.
The State contended that permissions under Sections 5 and 6 of the Rajasthan Religious Buildings and Places Act, 1954 had never been obtained for any of the structures, that show-cause notices had in fact been issued with opportunity for hearing which the petitioners failed to avail, and that the notifications under Section 139 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 extending BSF jurisdiction to the 50-km belt reflected a considered security policy.
Therefore, considering the existing framework and the notification, the Court held that the petitions suffered from inherent deficiencies regarding locus standi and lacked documentary proof establishing the petitioners' authority to represent the concerned institutions. It found that questions of title, ownership and land use raised in the notices constituted seriously disputed questions of fact falling outside writ jurisdiction, for which the statutory scheme provided a complete remedial hierarchy through the Revenue Appellate Authority and the Board of Revenue.
“This Court places on record its appreciation for the notification issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs dated 11 October 2021, which reflects a considered and bona fide exercise of statutory powers in the interest of national security and public safety. The decision to enhance and rationalize the jurisdiction of the Border Security Force in sensitive border areas manifests a proactive and well-calibrated approach to address emerging security challenges, including infiltration, trans-border crimes, and other threats to the sovereignty and integrity of the nation…”, it noted.
“…The said notification reflects a conscious policy decision taken at the highest level, having regard to the prevailing security scenario, intelligence inputs, and the need for effective prevention of transborder crimes such as smuggling, infiltration, and other activities prejudicial to national security. Thus, any administrative or regulatory action undertaken by the competent authorities within the notified zone, particularly in relation to unauthorized constructions or activities, is required to be viewed in the backdrop of the enlarged statutory framework and heightened security considerations…this Court holds that in matters involving national security, strict adherence to the traditional rigours of natural justice is not always warranted, and a pragmatic, situation responsive approach is permissible, provided that there exists material justifying such action.”, it further noted.
The Court distinguished the precedents relied upon by the petitioners, Abdul Khalek & Ors. v. State of Assam & Ors. 2026 INSC 140 and the Supreme Court's demolition-directions ruling, as concerning forest encroachments and demolition of properties linked to accused persons respectively, holding neither was analogous to structures situated in a border security zone.
Cause Title: Peer Mohammad Shah Jilani Dargah Samiti v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2026:RJ-JP:30648
Appearances:
Petitioners: Vikas Balia, Senior Advocate, Tahir Hakim, Ikbal Khan, Shahbaz Khan, Mohd. Riyaz, Abdul Kadir, C.S. Kotwani, Advocates.
Respondents: Rajendra Prasad, Advocate General, Anirudh Singh Shekhawat, Bharat Vyas, ASG, B.L. Bhati, AAG.