The Supreme Court said public criticism over the new Aravalli definition arises from perceived ambiguity and lack of clarity in its directions. The court has kept its earlier order in abeyance and will seek expert opinion before finalising the definition.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday said that the strong public criticism and dissent over the new definition of the Aravalli hills and ranges seems to be due to confusion, ambiguity and lack of clarity in the directions issued by the court.
The apex court took note of the widespread concern raised by environmentalists and other stakeholders who fear that the new definition may be misinterpreted or wrongly implemented.
In view of the outcry, the Supreme Court kept its November 20 directions in abeyance. These earlier directions had accepted a uniform definition of the Aravalli hills and ranges and had banned the grant of fresh mining leases within the Aravalli region covering parts of Delhi, Haryana, Rajasthan and Gujarat, till expert reports were received.
On November 20, the top court had accepted the recommendations of a committee constituted by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, which had proposed a definition aimed at protecting the Aravalli range, known as the world’s oldest mountain system.
While reconsidering the matter, a three-judge vacation bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant observed that there was serious public concern regarding the implications of the newly adopted definition. The bench also included Justices J K Maheshwari and Augustine George Masih.
The court said there has been strong opposition from environmentalists, who fear that the definition could be misused and may weaken protection for ecologically sensitive areas.
The bench observed,
“This public dissent and criticism appear to stem from the perceived ambiguity and lack of clarity in certain terms and directives issued by this court,”
highlighting that the wording of the earlier directions may have led to confusion.
The court further stressed the importance of resolving these issues and said there was an urgent need to re-examine and clarify the directions to avoid loopholes in environmental regulation. It warned that unclear definitions could create “regulatory gaps” that might seriously harm the ecological balance of the Aravalli region.
The order was passed in a suo motu matter titled
“In Re: Definition of Aravalli Hills and Ranges and Ancillary Issues”,
which the Supreme Court has been monitoring to ensure long-term environmental protection.
The bench described the Aravalli hills and ranges as ecologically vital and historically significant. It said the Aravallis are often referred to as the “green lungs” of northwestern India and have supported rich biodiversity and local communities for centuries.
Explaining the geographical importance of the mountain range, the bench observed,
“It serves as the indispensable ecological and socioeconomic backbone of the region, functioning as the primary geographical barrier separating the arid northwestern desert from the fertile northern plains,”
underlining its role in preventing desertification.
The court also noted that due to their ancient geological structure, the Aravalli hills contain some of India’s most valuable mineral resources. However, this has made the region vulnerable to large-scale exploitation.
The bench recorded repeated allegations that the Aravalli range has suffered serious damage due to human activities. It said the region has faced increasing anthropogenic pressure over the years, including illegal mining, deforestation and rapid urban expansion.
The court observed,
“Decades of unchecked urbanisation, systematic deforestation, and intensive resource extraction are said to have exerted immense strain upon this inherently fragile ecosystem,”
pointing to the long-term damage caused by uncontrolled development.
It further recalled that since 2002, the Supreme Court has continuously dealt with issues related to mining in the Aravalli region and has consistently emphasised the need to protect its fragile ecology.
Before allowing the committee’s report to be implemented or enforcing the November 20 directions, the bench stressed the importance of obtaining an independent and expert assessment. It said that a “fair, impartial, independent expert opinion” must be sought after consulting all relevant stakeholders.
According to the court, such an exercise is necessary to resolve “critical ambiguities” and to provide clear guidance on whether there are additional concerns or weaknesses in the proposed framework that may require further judicial intervention.
The Supreme Court proposed the formation of a high-powered expert panel comprising specialists from relevant fields to thoroughly review the committee’s report. The bench said this panel would carry out a detailed and holistic evaluation of the issues involved.
The court said the expert study must include a clear identification of areas that would be excluded from protection under the proposed definition and the consequences of such exclusion.
It further directed that the panel must analyse whether allowing “sustainable mining” or “regulated mining” within the newly defined Aravalli areas, even under strict regulatory supervision, could still lead to environmental damage.
The bench also emphasised the need to examine the long-term consequences for areas that would fall outside the definition. It said the study must assess whether excluding such areas could result in their gradual destruction or loss, thereby threatening the ecological integrity of the entire Aravalli range.
Additionally, the Supreme Court said a multi-temporal analysis must be conducted to assess both short-term and long-term environmental impacts arising from the implementation of the proposed definition and related directions.
The court issued notices to the Centre and the governments of Delhi, Rajasthan, Haryana and Gujarat, seeking their responses. The matter has been listed for further hearing on January 21.
Click Here to Read More Reports On Aravalli Hills
