Leader of the Opposition in the West Bengal Assembly, Suvendu Adhikari, has strongly defended the proposal to remove a mosque located near Kolkata’s airport, arguing that national security must take precedence over all other considerations. His remarks have intensified the political debate surrounding infrastructure, security, and religious sensitivities in the state.
The issue gained attention after concerns were raised regarding the presence of a mosque situated close to the airport premises. According to Adhikari, any structure that could potentially affect airport security or operational safety should be examined without political or religious bias. He maintained that ensuring the safety of passengers, airport staff, and national infrastructure is the government’s foremost responsibility.
Speaking on the matter, Adhikari stated that the debate should not be viewed through the lens of religion but rather from the perspective of national interest. He argued that airports are considered highly sensitive installations and must be protected with strict security measures. In his view, any construction located in the vicinity of such strategic facilities should comply with security regulations and operational requirements.
The BJP leader also referred to similar instances in other parts of the country where structures, irrespective of their religious or social significance, were removed or relocated for infrastructure expansion, public safety, or national security reasons. He asserted that equal standards should be applied in every case and that no structure should receive special treatment if it interferes with critical public projects or security protocols.
Adhikari criticized the West Bengal government, accusing it of delaying action due to political considerations. He alleged that the administration was reluctant to address the issue because of vote-bank politics and urged the authorities to prioritize public safety over electoral interests. According to him, decisions involving strategic infrastructure should be based solely on legal and security assessments rather than political calculations. 
The controversy has generated mixed reactions across the political spectrum. Supporters of the proposed removal argue that security around airports must remain uncompromised and that any encroachment or unauthorized structure should be dealt with according to the law. They believe that sensitive installations require strict compliance with aviation safety norms and that authorities should act without discrimination.
On the other hand, critics have expressed concerns over the handling of the issue, stressing that any action involving religious structures should follow due legal process and respect constitutional protections. They argue that authorities must ensure transparency, consult affected stakeholders, and avoid actions that could create unnecessary social or communal tensions.
The matter has also reignited discussions about balancing infrastructure development with the preservation of religious and community spaces. Experts note that while public safety and national security remain paramount, any relocation or removal of religious structures should be carried out in accordance with existing laws, court directions, and administrative procedures to maintain public confidence.
Airport security remains a critical aspect of India’s civil aviation framework. Airports are classified as sensitive zones where strict surveillance, restricted access, and security protocols are enforced to safeguard passengers and national assets. Authorities periodically review surrounding areas to identify any factors that could affect operational safety or security preparedness.
Political observers believe the issue could become a significant point of discussion in West Bengal’s political landscape, especially as parties continue to sharpen their positions on governance, security, and public administration. The controversy is expected to remain under close watch as authorities assess the legal and administrative aspects of the proposed action.
For now, the debate continues to reflect the broader challenge of balancing national security requirements with legal rights, community concerns, and constitutional principles. Any final decision regarding the structure is likely to depend on official assessments, applicable laws, and administrative procedures aimed at ensuring both public safety and due process.