Supreme Court’s recent definition of the Aravalli Hills has come under scrutiny. Advocate Hitendra Gandhi urged the Chief Justice of India to review the ruling, warning that the ‘100-Metre Test’ may weaken critical environmental protections.
Hitendra Gandhi, an advocate, reached out to the Chief Justice of India, urging the Supreme Court to reconsider or clarify the definitions used to identify the “Aravalli Hills and Ranges” in its recent ruling dated November 20, 2025.
He warned that a narrow, height-based criterion might inadvertently weaken environmental protections across North-West India.
In a detailed letter to the Chief Justice Surya Kant, Gandhi commended the Court’s November 20 decision in In Re: Issue Relating to Definition of Aravali Hills and Ranges as an important and positive step toward recognizing the Aravalli system as an ecologically critical natural shield.
Read Also: Supreme Court Orders Action Against Officials Allowing Illegal Mining in Aravalli
He praised the Court’s instructions to develop a comprehensive Management Plan for Sustainable Mining involving the Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education (ICFRE), highlighting the focus on cumulative impact and carrying capacity, as well as the interim ban on new mining leases.
However, he expressed concern regarding the operational definition established in the order, which categorizes landforms with a local relief of 100 meters or more above their immediate surroundings as the main criterion for identifying Aravalli hills and ranges.
Gandhi argued that this approach risks overlooking significant, ecologically vital components of the Aravalli landscape that may not meet the height requirement yet are crucial for ecosystem functioning.
He pointed out that the Aravallis are an ancient and extensively eroded ridge system where ecological significance is not limited to prominent peaks.
Features such as low-relief ridges, outcrops, slopes, corridors, and recharge-bearing terrains are essential for groundwater recharge, buffering against dust and desertification, enhancing biodiversity connectivity, moderating microclimates, and bolstering the ecological resilience of the Delhi–NCR region.
He cautioned that environmental protections in India often hinge on legal classifications and land records. A narrowly defined framework could create grey zones where enforcement becomes ambiguous, potentially allowing for land-use changes, mining, and construction in areas scientifically recognized as part of the Aravalli system.
He warned that such outcomes could have irreversible consequences. Connecting this issue to public health, he highlighted the ongoing air quality crisis in the Delhi–NCR region, noting that the ridge forests and associated scrub landscapes of the Aravallis function as natural barriers to dust movement and help mitigate particulate resuspension.
Removal of protections for ridge-connected areas could worsen air pollution, exacerbate groundwater depletion, increase heat extremes, fragment wildlife corridors, and elevate climate vulnerability.
Gandhi grounded his arguments in constitutional principles, referencing Article 21’s guarantee of the right to a healthy environment, alongside Articles 48A and 51A(g), which impose responsibilities on both the State and citizens to safeguard the environment.
He invoked established principles of environmental jurisprudence, including the precautionary principle, the public trust doctrine, sustainable development, and intergenerational equity, contending that in situations where definitions pose a risk of irreversible ecological damage, constitutional institutions should prioritize protection.
Additionally, he raised potential concerns under Article 14, pointing out that ecologically similar ridge segments could face different treatments solely due to variations in local relief, despite sharing comparable hydrological and ecological functions.
Seeking a focused yet impactful intervention, he requested that the Chief Justice consider referring the issue to an appropriate Bench for clarification or modification. He advocated for a refined definition that incorporates a multi-criteria approach, taking into account geomorphology, hydrology, ecology, and connectivity, rather than relying exclusively on height.
Also Read: “The Aravallis Have to be Protected” : Supreme Court to 4 States
Among other recommendations, Gandhi called for the public audit of datasets and geo-referenced maps used for identifying Aravalli areas, maintenance of protections for ecologically connected landscapes until the management plan is finalized, and the implementation of binding constraints on carrying capacity and no-go zones within the mining framework.
He concluded by stating that his representation was made in the public interest, respecting judicial authority, and aimed solely at ensuring that the Court’s protective intent for the Aravallis is meaningful and enforceable.