In a judgment that is likely to assume considerable significance in the jurisprudence governing the intersection of national security, property rights and religious institutions, the Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a batch of writ petitions challenging show-cause and eviction notices issued to several Mosques, Madrasas and Dargahs situated within approximately 50 kilometres of the India–Pakistan international border. Holding that the controversy must be viewed through the lens of border security and regulatory compliance rather than communal identity, the Court observed that the impugned action formed part of a larger administrative exercise undertaken in a strategically sensitive border belt and could not, at the threshold, be characterised as discriminatory merely because certain religious structures were among those receiving notices. Justice Sameer Jain, while declining to interfere with the notices, emphasised that issues touching upon national security necessarily require judicial restraint and that constitutional courts must accord due weight to the assessment of specialised executive authorities entrusted with protecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the nation. At the same time, the Court sought to balance security concerns with procedural fairness by directing the constitution of district-level committees to examine individual cases before any coercive action is taken.
The petitions were instituted by several religious bodies, including Peer Mohammad Shah Jilani Dargah Samiti, questioning the legality of eviction, vacation and show-cause notices served upon religious structures situated in the border districts of Rajasthan. The petitioners contended that many of these institutions had existed for decades and that the authorities had acted in undue haste without granting adequate opportunity of hearing. It was argued that the notices violated principles of natural justice and that the statutory framework under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, particularly Section 90A, envisages regularisation of land use wherever statutory conditions are satisfied. The petitioners further submitted that the administration had not properly considered their representations before initiating eviction proceedings and that the action disproportionately affected places of religious worship. According to the petitioners, the notices were therefore arbitrary, procedurally deficient and liable to be quashed in exercise of the High Court’s writ jurisdiction.
The State Government, however, presented the dispute in an entirely different constitutional context. It argued that the proceedings were not directed against any particular religious denomination but formed part of a larger regulatory exercise concerning unauthorised constructions situated within a highly sensitive border zone. The State pointed out that many of the structures had allegedly been erected without obtaining mandatory permissions contemplated under the Rajasthan Religious Buildings and Places Act, particularly the provisions governing construction of public religious buildings. More importantly, the respondents submitted that intelligence inputs and administrative records indicated that unauthorised permanent structures within the border belt required closer scrutiny from the standpoint of national security. The Government relied upon the Ministry of Home Affairs Notification dated 11 October 2021, issued under Section 139 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968, whereby the operational jurisdiction of the Border Security Force in Rajasthan, Punjab, West Bengal and Assam was rationalised and extended up to 50 kilometres from the international border to strengthen surveillance against infiltration, cross-border smuggling and organised transnational crime.
Accepting the broad thrust of the State’s submissions, the High Court observed that the 2021 notification represented a conscious policy decision taken by the Union Government after evaluating prevailing security conditions along India’s international borders. Justice Jain noted that constitutional courts are ill-equipped to second-guess security assessments based upon confidential intelligence inputs and operational considerations. The judgment records that the notification reflects a bona fide exercise of statutory power intended to strengthen border management in the face of evolving security threats, including infiltration, smuggling networks and activities prejudicial to national security. The Court therefore held that administrative measures undertaken within the notified border belt must be examined against this enlarged statutory and security framework rather than through an isolated property law perspective. In doing so, the Court acknowledged that preservation of national security constitutes one of the State’s foremost constitutional obligations flowing from the sovereignty and integrity of the Republic.
One of the most significant aspects of the judgment is its rejection of the contention that the exercise was motivated by religious discrimination. The Court observed that the material placed before it indicated that notices had been issued across the board wherever unauthorised structures were found within the sensitive border belt, without reference to the religious identity of the institution concerned. Justice Jain therefore remarked that attempts to attribute a communal colour to the administrative action were “wholly misplaced” on the facts presented before the Court. The Bench carefully clarified that the dispute concerned regulatory compliance and national security, not the religious character of the structures involved. Importantly, the Court also recorded that during the course of arguments, the petitioners themselves accepted that where genuine issues of national security arise, the competent authorities are empowered to take appropriate action in accordance with law.
The judgment is equally important for its treatment of natural justice in matters involving security administration. While acknowledging that principles of audi alteram partem ordinarily govern administrative decision-making, the Court observed that those principles are not inflexible or mechanically applicable in every situation. Justice Jain held that where issues of national security are involved, strict adherence to conventional procedural requirements may, in appropriate circumstances, yield to compelling public interest, provided there exists objective material justifying such action. The Court found that the petitioners had been issued notices and that statutory remedies under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act remained available. Consequently, the writ petitions were held to be premature, particularly because disputed questions of fact regarding ownership, authorisation and land status could not conveniently be adjudicated in writ proceedings.
The High Court also rejected the petitioners’ reliance upon the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Re: Directions in the Matter of Demolition of Structures, where the apex court laid down safeguards against arbitrary demolition of private property. Justice Jain distinguished that precedent on the ground that the Supreme Court’s guidelines primarily addressed punitive demolitions of properties belonging to accused persons, whereas the present litigation arose in an entirely different context involving border management and national security. According to the Court, the issues could not be equated because the present proceedings concerned administrative regulation of unauthorised constructions located in a strategically sensitive area adjoining an international border. This distinction is legally significant because it underscores that constitutional safeguards against arbitrary executive action continue to operate, but their application necessarily depends upon the statutory context and the competing public interest involved.
Notwithstanding its refusal to interfere with the notices, the High Court did not grant unrestricted authority to the administration. Recognising that individual factual situations may vary considerably, the Court directed the constitution of a Committee comprising the District Collector, the Superintendent of Police and a representative of the Border Security Force for each concerned district. The Committee has been tasked with examining each property on its own merits before further action is taken. This direction is perhaps the most balanced feature of the judgment because it acknowledges that while national security concerns deserve judicial deference, individual cases must nevertheless receive objective administrative consideration rather than being decided through a blanket approach. By insisting upon district-level scrutiny, the Court preserved an avenue for case-specific assessment without undermining the larger security policy.
From a constitutional perspective, the judgment illustrates the judiciary’s continuing effort to reconcile fundamental rights with compelling State interests. Religious institutions undoubtedly enjoy constitutional protection under Articles 25 and 26, which guarantee freedom of religion and the right to manage religious affairs. However, these rights have never been absolute. The Constitution itself expressly subjects them to public order, morality, health and other provisions of Part III, while judicial precedent has consistently recognised that regulatory measures concerning land use, public safety and national security may legitimately operate upon religious institutions, provided they are religion-neutral and authorised by law. The Rajasthan High Court’s reasoning reflects this constitutional balance by refusing to convert a dispute concerning unauthorised constructions in a border security zone into a question of religious identity.
The decision is also likely to have broader implications for future litigation involving religious structures situated in strategically sensitive areas. It signals that courts are likely to distinguish between actions founded upon neutral regulatory objectives and those alleged to be motivated by religious discrimination. Where the State is able to demonstrate a statutory basis, uniform application and a credible connection with national security, constitutional courts may be reluctant to interfere at the threshold, particularly when adequate statutory remedies remain available.
Ultimately, the Rajasthan High Court’s judgment is not merely a decision concerning eviction notices issued to certain religious institutions. It is an important exposition of the constitutional principle that national security and the rule of law are not mutually exclusive but must operate in constitutional harmony. While recognising the sensitivity associated with places of worship, the Court has reaffirmed that administrative measures undertaken in pursuit of legitimate security objectives cannot automatically be viewed through the prism of communal discrimination. Equally, by directing district-level committees to examine each case individually, the Court has ensured that executive action remains subject to procedural accountability. The judgment therefore stands as an important reminder that constitutional adjudication in sensitive matters requires neither unquestioning acceptance of executive action nor reflexive judicial intervention, but a careful balancing of individual rights, statutory safeguards and the State’s paramount duty to safeguard the nation’s security.
