The Supreme Court of India said it would not issue any order favouring mining leaseholders for now, noting disturbing feedback about mining activities affecting the Aravalli hills and nearby ranges, and stressing the need to examine environmental concerns.
The Supreme Court indicated it would not issue any order benefiting mining leaseholders at this stage, citing quite disturbing feedback it has received regarding mining activities in the Aravalli hills and the surrounding ranges.
The bench noted that specific ecological concerns are involved and said that, in February, it had asked the environment ministry and other stakeholders to suggest names of domain experts for a panel to determine the scope of the Aravalli hills and ranges.
Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi said after the hearing on Friday, when the matter being examined suo motu was mentioned,
“We will not hear this matter in a piecemeal (manner). We will not permit any activity unless we are fully satisfied,”
The Chief Justice remarked,
“Lot of things are happening there. We are getting feedback and it is quite disturbing,”
The bench also told the lawyer who raised the submission that if any mining lease is cancelled, the affected party may challenge the decision.
The bench said,
“We will not pass any order in favour of the mining lease holders now. This is a sensitive matter,”
Earlier, on November 20, 2025, the Supreme Court accepted a uniform definition of the Aravalli hills and ranges and barred the grant of fresh mining leases within the identified areas across Delhi, Haryana, Rajasthan, and Gujarat until expert reports are available.
It adopted recommendations from a ministry committee meant to protect the world’s oldest mountain system.
The committee recommended that an Aravalli Hill be defined as any landform in designated Aravalli districts having an elevation of 100 metres or more above its local relief, while an “Aravalli Range” would mean a cluster of two or more such hills within 500 metres of each other.
Earlier, On December 29, the court took note of public and environmentalist criticism over the new definition and kept its November 20 directions in abeyance, while also pausing all mining activities.
The court said there is a need to resolve critical ambiguities, including whether the 100-metre elevation criterion and the 500-metre spacing requirement between hills could reduce the extent of environmental protection.
Before that, the court had observed that the earlier committee report and its own decision appeared to have omitted to expressly clarify certain critical issues, and that there is dire need to further probe in order to prevent regulatory gaps that could weaken the ecological integrity of the Aravalli region.
The court further directed that, in line with its May 9, 2024 order, no permission for mining in the “Aravalli Hills and Ranges” (as defined in the August 25, 2010 FSI report) would be granted without its prior approval.
The bench had said,
“There has been a significant outcry among environmentalists, who have expressed profound concern about the potential for misinterpretation and improper implementation of the newly adopted definition and this court’s directions,”