The Supreme Court has stayed its recent verdict on the Aravalli Hills, citing widespread misinterpretation of its observations and an expert committee report. Notices have been issued to the Union government and States as the Court seeks fresh, independent expert inputs.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday heard an important matter concerning the scope, identification, and environmental protection of the Aravalli hill ranges, raising concerns that existing definitions and judicial observations may be leading to misinterpretation and regulatory gaps, particularly enabling unregulated mining.
A Bench comprising Justices Surya Kant, J.K. Maheshwari, and Augustine George Masih examined submissions related to earlier court directions and an expert committee report on the Aravalli ranges.
Appearing for the Union of India, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that there had been “many misconceptions” regarding the government’s role and the Supreme Court’s previous orders. He informed the Court that
“an expert committee had already been constituted, its report submitted, and subsequently accepted by the Court.”
However, the Court expressed serious reservations. The Chief Justice of India (CJI) observed that both the expert committee’s report and certain observations made by the Court were being misunderstood and misconstrued, necessitating urgent clarification.
“We believe that certain observations arising from the expert committee’s report, as well as this Court’s subsequent remarks, are being misunderstood and will require clarification,”
the CJI stated.
The Court stressed that before implementing either the committee’s report or judicial directions, it was necessary to obtain a fair, impartial, and independent expert opinion to provide clarity on key ecological and geological issues.
One of the Court’s primary concerns was whether the current definition of the Aravalli Hills had created structural inconsistencies, potentially expanding non-Aravalli areas and inadvertently allowing unregulated mining activities to continue.
Key Issues Identified by the Court
The Supreme Court highlighted several critical questions requiring expert assessment, including:
- Whether regulated mining should be permitted in 500-metre gaps between hill ranges
- What structural and ecological parameters are necessary to maintain environmental continuity
- Whether it is correct that only 1,048 out of 12,081 hills meet the 100-metre elevation threshold
- Whether a detailed geological inquiry is required for accurate identification
- Whether the exclusion of certain territories from the Aravalli classification risks ecological degradation
In view of these complexities, the Court proposed constituting a high-powered expert committee to conduct a holistic assessment of the Aravalli ranges. The committee will examine:
- The precise identification of the Aravalli territories
- Areas excluded under current definitions
- Potential environmental and ecological consequences of such exclusions
The Court issued notices to the Union Government, the two concerned States, and Mr. Parameshwar, who had earlier acted as amicus curiae and will continue assisting the Court. The Attorney General of India and the Solicitor General have also been requested to assist in the matter.
Importantly, the Court ordered that the committee’s recommendations and its own subsequent findings shall remain in abeyance for the time being.
The CJI also expressed displeasure over parties filing interlocutory applications (IAs) and simultaneously making public statements on the issue.
“Some parties are filing IAs and then making public statements, which is not acceptable,”
the Court cautioned.
The matter is scheduled to be taken up on 21 January 2026, after further deliberation on the composition of the proposed expert committee.
The case arises from the Union government’s notification of a revised definition of the Aravalli Range, which environmental experts fear could exclude large ecologically sensitive areas from protection and open them to mining and commercial activity. Recognising these risks, the Supreme Court has stayed new mining leases in the region until a scientifically sound, sustainable mining management plan is prepared.
Advocate Hitendra Gandhi has written to the Chief Justice seeking clarification of the Court’s November 20, 2025, order, which defines the Aravalli hills primarily based on a minimum local relief of 100 metres. While praising the Court’s interim mining ban and direction to involve ICFRE in preparing a comprehensive management plan, Gandhi warned that a height-based definition may overlook ecologically vital low-relief ridges, slopes, recharge zones, and corridors that are crucial for groundwater recharge, biodiversity, air quality, and climate resilience, especially in the Delhi–NCR region.
He cautioned that a narrow definition could weaken environmental protections, create enforcement ambiguities, and lead to irreversible ecological damage. Invoking constitutional and environmental law principles, Gandhi urged the Court to adopt a broader, multi-criteria definition based on geomorphology, hydrology, ecology, and connectivity, and to maintain protections for connected landscapes until a final management framework is in place.
Supreme Court Accepts Centre’s Definition of Aravali Hills
The Supreme Court on November 20 examined the definition of the Aravalli Hills and Ranges and the need for their conservation across Delhi, Haryana, Rajasthan, and Gujarat. The Court highlighted that the Aravallis are among the world’s oldest mountain systems and play a vital role as a green barrier against desertification, biodiversity loss, groundwater depletion, and climate instability in North India.
Recognising India’s international obligations under the UN Convention to Combat Desertification and national initiatives such as the Aravali Green Wall Project, the Court stressed the need for a uniform, scientific, and precautionary approach to regulating mining in the region.
The case arose from conflicting state-level definitions of the Aravalli Hills, which led to regulatory gaps and illegal mining. Acting on the Central Empowered Committee’s (CEC) recommendations, the Court noted the need for a consistent definition and stronger safeguards. A committee constituted by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) proposed an operational definition based primarily on landforms having a local relief of 100 metres or more, along with proximity criteria to define “ranges.”
While accepting the committee’s definition and its recommendations on prohibiting mining in core and inviolate areas (such as protected areas, wildlife corridors, wetlands, and recharge zones), the Court expressed concern about the ecological fragility of the Aravallis. Drawing from its earlier experience in Saranda, Jharkhand, the Court directed that a comprehensive Management Plan for Sustainable Mining (MPSM) be prepared for the entire Aravalli system by the Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education (ICFRE).
The Court ordered that:
- No new mining leases shall be granted until the MPSM is finalised.
- Existing legal mining operations may continue, but only in strict compliance with environmental safeguards.
- The MPSM must identify no-go zones, assess cumulative environmental impacts and carrying capacity, and prescribe restoration and rehabilitation measures.
- Future mining will be permitted only in areas deemed suitable for sustainable mining under the MPSM.
Balancing environmental protection with livelihood concerns, the Court declined to impose a total mining ban, noting that blanket prohibitions can encourage illegal mining.
Case Title:
IN RE: DEFINITION OF ARAVALLI HILLS AND RANGES AND ANCILLARY ISSUES
SMW(C) No. 10/2025
READ LIVE COVERAGE
READ ARAVALLI JUDGMENT (Nov 20, 2025)
Click Here to Read More Reports On Aravalli Hills
