The Supreme Court of India said the proposed Aravalli expert committee must consult environmental specialists and stakeholders while remaining compact, with CJI Surya Kant observing that a 5–7 member panel would ensure effective functioning and ecological protection of the mountain range.
The Supreme Court observed that the expert committee proposed to be constituted for defining the Aravalli hills and ranges must engage with domain experts, environmental specialists and other stakeholders to ensure that public concerns are adequately considered before any final framework is prepared.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi made the observations while hearing matters relating to the ecological protection and legal classification of the Aravalli mountain system, one of the oldest mountain ranges in the world.
During the hearing, the Bench clarified that while expert consultation was necessary, the committee itself should remain compact to ensure efficiency and proper functioning.
The Bench observed,
“We cannot have a composition of 30 people as it will become unmanageable. The committee must consult experts, and it should have 5-7 members. We will note it in the order,”
As the proceedings commenced, Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the Union government, informed the Court that the Central Empowered Committee and the amicus curiae had already proposed certain common names for inclusion in the panel, which could now be finalised by the Court.
The Supreme Court had earlier directed the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change and other stakeholders to suggest names of domain experts who could be included in the proposed committee tasked with defining the geographical and ecological contours of the Aravalli hills and ranges.
The issue assumes significance because the Aravalli range stretches across several States including Delhi, Haryana, Rajasthan and Gujarat, and has long been at the centre of environmental litigation concerning illegal mining, deforestation, urban encroachment and ecological degradation.
The controversy intensified after the Supreme Court, on November 20, 2025, accepted a uniform definition of the Aravalli hills and ranges based on recommendations submitted by a committee constituted by the Union Environment Ministry.
The committee had recommended that an “Aravalli Hill” should mean any landform situated within designated Aravalli districts having an elevation of at least 100 metres above local relief. It further proposed that an “Aravalli Range” would consist of two or more such hills located within 500 metres of each other.
Based on these recommendations, the apex court had prohibited the grant of fresh mining leases within the identified Aravalli areas until expert reports were finalised.
However, the definition soon triggered widespread criticism and concern among environmentalists, activists and local stakeholders, who argued that the criteria could potentially exclude large portions of the fragile ecosystem from legal protection.
Taking note of the growing public outcry, the Supreme Court on December 29 last year kept its earlier November 20 directions in abeyance and suspended the implementation of the uniform definition.
The Court had then observed that several “critical ambiguities” needed to be resolved before any final decision could be taken. Among the concerns flagged by the Bench was whether the requirement of a minimum 100-metre elevation and the 500-metre gap criteria would effectively deprive substantial portions of the Aravalli ecosystem of environmental safeguards.
The Court had simultaneously ordered a halt on mining activities in the Aravalli region while the matter remained under consideration.
The latest observations of the apex court indicate that it intends to adopt a broader consultative approach before finalising any legally binding definition of the Aravalli hills and ranges, given the significant environmental implications attached to the issue.
The matter is expected to be taken up again after the proposed expert committee is formally constituted and its scope of work is settled by the Court.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
