look news india
The Rajasthan High Court has given a very important and big decision regarding the religious structures built near the India-Pakistan international border. The court has dismissed all the petitions filed against the eviction and show cause notices issued to mosques, madrassas and dargahs located within a radius of 50 km from the border. The High Court made it clear in its historic order that national security and public interest on the country’s borders is the biggest priority, which cannot be compromised at any cost.
After all, under which law is this major action being taken?
After this decision, this legal question is being discussed across the country that on the basis of which rule the administration is taking this strict step in the border areas. In its decision, the Rajasthan High Court has specifically mentioned the notification of the Union Home Ministry dated October 11, 2021 and Section 139 of the Border Security Force (BSF) Act, 1968. Under this legal framework, the Central Government had increased the operational and jurisdictional area of BSF by 50 kilometers to prevent the changing security situation on the border, infiltration, smuggling and anti-national activities. The court has considered this a thoughtful policy decision.
Why is the security radius of 50 kilometers so sensitive?
The court acknowledged that the area up to 50 kilometers along the India-Pakistan border is extremely sensitive from security point of view. Any kind of illegal construction or suspicious activity in this area can become a matter of great concern for the security agencies of the country. The court clearly said that administrative action taken on the international border cannot be seen like any ordinary revenue dispute over land. Its sole objective is to make the nation’s security system impenetrable.
State government exposed in court for construction without approval
During the hearing, the state government presented strong arguments before the court. The government said that the mosques, madrassas and dargahs concerned were built without any valid government permission, approval or land use change. Based on government records, public complaints and inputs received from intelligence agencies, operation of these unauthorized structures in the border area can pose a serious threat to national security. The government clarified that this action is within the ambit of law and is not at all against any particular religion.
Attempt to give communal color failed, court rejected the plea of discrimination
The petitioners had claimed in the court that the administration was targeting religious places of only a particular community. Completely rejecting this argument, the High Court said that there is no such fact on record to prove it. The court wrote in a strict tone in its order that wherever illegal constructions were found in the sensitive border area, notices were given without any discrimination. Therefore, the attempt to give a communal color to this national security issue is completely wrong and beyond the facts.
There were serious legal deficiencies and lack of documents in the petitions.
The High Court, upon investigation, found that there was a severe lack of basic legal documents in the applications filed by the petitioners. Many petitioners could not even prove that they had any valid legal connection with that mosque or madrassa. There was no proposal or charter of any registered institution on record. Additionally, necessary statutory permissions under Sections 5 and 6 of the ‘Religious Buildings Act’ were not obtained for the construction of these structures, which prima facie proved that these constructions were completely illegal.
Why was the reference to the Supreme Court’s ‘bulldozer decision’ rejected?
The lawyers of the petitioners had argued about the recent decision of the Supreme Court in which strict guidelines were issued regarding bulldozer action. However, the Rajasthan High Court rejected this comparison outright. The court clarified that the decision of the Supreme Court was related to punitive action on the personal properties of criminals and accused. It cannot at all be compared with a strategically sensitive area like the India-Pakistan border and this issue related to the sovereignty of the country.
The rules of ‘natural justice’ in national security are not always the same
Making another important comment, the High Court said that when it comes to the security of the country, it is not necessary to follow the rules of traditional natural justice in every situation. If the administration has solid inputs and proper grounds related to national security, a pragmatic and strict approach can be adopted. The court accepted that administrative procedures have been properly followed in this case and there has been no serious violation of the rights of the petitioners.
What will happen next now? Court made action plan
Along with rejecting the petitions, the High Court has also ensured that injustice is not done to anyone. The court has directed that a joint committee comprising the District Collector (DM), Superintendent of Police (SP) and representatives of the Border Security Force (BSF) of the respective border districts be formed. This special committee will closely examine each disputed property individually and at the ground level, only after which eviction or further appropriate action will be taken as per law.