The Indian Army has raised serious security concerns over a proposed multi-speciality hospital in Jorhat, Assam, situated perilously close to a military camp along the Indo-Bangladesh border. This contentious issue has now escalated to the Supreme Court of India, where the Army fears potential threats from drone incursions and long-range sniper rifles targeting the camp.

The hospital's location overlooks the sensitive military installation, prompting the Army to object vehemently to its construction. Officials argue that the proximity could compromise operational security in a strategically vital border area, where vigilance against cross-border threats remains paramount.

In its submissions to the Supreme Court, the Army outlined stringent conditions should the project proceed. It demands a concrete boundary wall exceeding 15 feet in height, fitted with separators to block visibility and access. Furthermore, no windows in the hospital structure should face the Army camp, minimising any line-of-sight vulnerabilities.

A bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma heard detailed arguments from Army representatives. Additional Solicitor General Vikramjit Banerjee appeared for the Centre, emphasising the need to reconcile civilian development with national security imperatives.

The justices acknowledged the Army's apprehensions, noting the delicate balance required between public welfare and defence readiness. The proposed hospital aims to serve the local population with advanced medical facilities, yet its positioning near the border has ignited this legal standoff.

Jorhat, nestled in Assam's Upper region, hosts key military assets due to its proximity to the international boundary with Bangladesh. The area has witnessed intermittent tensions, including smuggling and infiltration attempts, underscoring the Army's rationale for heightened precautions.

Drone threats have emerged as a growing concern for India's armed forces along porous borders. Unmanned aerial vehicles, often deployed by non-state actors or adversaries, can carry surveillance equipment or explosives, evading traditional detection methods.

Long-range sniper rifles represent another peril, capable of striking targets from over a kilometre away. Modern variants, equipped with advanced optics, could exploit elevated hospital structures for reconnaissance or direct assaults on the nearby camp.

The Army's stipulations draw from established security protocols at sensitive installations nationwide. Similar objections have arisen in other regions, such as near airbases or forward posts, where civilian projects undergo rigorous scrutiny under the Works of Defence Act, 1903.

This legislation empowers the military to regulate constructions within proximity of defence establishments, prioritising strategic interests. Violations can lead to demolition orders, as seen in past cases involving hotels and residential complexes near borders.

The Supreme Court hearing reflects broader challenges in India's border states, where rapid urbanisation clashes with defence needs. Assam, with its 262-kilometre frontier shared with Bangladesh, grapples with balancing infrastructure growth and security.

Local stakeholders, including hospital proponents, contend that denying the project would deprive underserved communities of essential healthcare. Jorhat district faces shortages in specialised medical services, with residents often travelling to Guwahati or beyond for treatment.

The Centre, through ASG Banerjee, urged a pragmatic approach, possibly involving technical assessments by joint expert committees. Such panels could evaluate mitigation measures like anti-drone systems or reinforced perimeters to assuage military fears.

Justice Datta's bench indicated it would deliberate further, potentially directing site inspections or affidavits from all parties. The outcome could set precedents for future developments near India's 15,000-kilometre land borders, spanning multiple adversaries.

This dispute arrives amid India's push for indigenous defence infrastructure, including border fencing and surveillance grids. The Army's stance aligns with recent investments in counter-drone technologies, such as laser-based systems trialled along the western frontier.

Critics of the Army's position argue it may hinder economic progress in the Northeast, a region prioritised under the Act East Policy. Yet, security experts emphasise that lapses in border vigilance could have cascading effects on national stability.

As the matter lingers in the Supreme Court, construction remains stalled, highlighting the judiciary's pivotal role in adjudicating defence-civilian conflicts. A final verdict could redefine parameters for projects in border zones, ensuring both safety and development.

The episode underscores evolving threats in modern warfare, where asymmetric tactics like drones challenge conventional defences. For the Army, safeguarding camps like Jorhat's is non-negotiable, even as civilian aspirations mount.

Based On PTI Report