The Supreme Court has directed the Gujarat government to ensure that the boundary wall being constructed near the Gir Somnath Temple — aimed at preventing encroachments — does not exceed a height of five to six feet.

The direction came during the hearing of a case involving alleged alterations at a site where demolition activities had previously taken place.

The matter arose from a petition challenging the construction of a boundary wall at the demolition site, with the petitioner contending that a 12-foot-high wall was being erected in violation of earlier assurances given to the Court. Concerns were raised that the high wall would alter the character of the land and obstruct visibility, fueling apprehensions about activities behind the structure.

Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde, representing the petitioner, argued that the wall's height was an attempt to change the nature of the land and impede oversight. He pointed out that the tall structure would prevent monitoring of the site, contrary to the assurances previously made.

In response, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the State of Gujarat, dismissed the allegations as unsubstantiated oral claims. He clarified that the wall was being built solely to protect the land from future encroachments and stressed that no religious or other activities were being conducted on the disputed site.

The Bench, comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih, made critical observations during the proceedings. Justice Gavai noted, “Don’t have a 12-feet wall. If you are protecting it, five feet, six feet is enough," emphasizing the need for a reasonable approach to land protection. The Court also questioned the necessity of constructing a 12-foot wall and suggested that modern surveillance tools, such as drones, could easily monitor the area.

In a lighter remark, Justice Gavai cautioned against sensationalizing the situation, stating, “It is not a Great Wall of China. Let us not sensationalise.”

Concluding the hearing, the Supreme Court directed Solicitor General Mehta to instruct the local collector to ensure that the boundary wall’s height does not exceed five to six feet. The matter has been listed for further hearing on May 20, with the Court clarifying that if any additional construction activities beyond the permitted wall are carried out, the petitioner is free to seek appropriate relief.

Previously, the Court had dismissed a plea seeking permission to conduct the "Urs" festival at the site and had warned authorities against carrying out any contemptuous demolition activities. It had also reiterated that illegal demolitions, if established, would be contrary to constitutional principles, while allowing the removal of unauthorized structures from public land.