Environmental concerns surrounding the Aravalli Range have once again reached the doors of the Supreme Court of India, with environmental activist and lawyer Hitendra Gandhi urging the judiciary to revisit what he calls a deeply flawed ecological safeguard.
In a detailed representation addressed to Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, and also sent to the President of India, Gandhi has sought a review and clarification of the so-called “100-metre test” used to identify protected areas within the Aravallis. He has warned that the rigid application of a numerical, height-based criterion risks excluding large swathes of ecologically vital terrain that may not meet the prescribed threshold but remain functionally indispensable.
The Aravalli range, one of the world’s oldest mountain systems, stretches across Gujarat, Rajasthan, Haryana and Delhi. It acts as a natural barrier against desertification, regulates local climate and serves as a critical groundwater recharge zone for the water-stressed National Capital Region. Over the past three decades, however, the hills have faced relentless pressure from mining, construction and real-estate expansion, prompting repeated legal interventions by courts and environmental regulators.
At the heart of the present controversy is the “100-metre rule”, which effectively treats only those landforms rising more than 100 metres above the surrounding plains as protected Aravalli hills. Gandhi argues that such a test is ecologically unsound and legally arbitrary. In his letter, he notes that low ridges, shallow hillocks and gently undulating landforms are often dismissed as non-Aravalli simply because they fail a numerical height test, even though these formations play a crucial role in groundwater recharge, surface-runoff regulation and biodiversity support.
Environmental experts have long cautioned that the Aravallis do not exist only as dramatic peaks. Much of the range, particularly in Haryana and parts of Rajasthan, survives as low ridges, forested mounds and rocky outcrops. According to Gandhi, these are precisely the areas most vulnerable to exploitation when protection is limited to visually prominent hills, allowing mining leases and construction approvals in zones that are ecologically fragile but legally unprotected.
The representation urges the Supreme Court to adopt a more holistic, science-driven definition of the Aravallis, one that recognises geological continuity, hydrological function and ecological value rather than relying solely on height. Gandhi has also flagged that the 100-metre test undermines earlier judicial directions that emphasised conservation of the entire Aravalli ecosystem, not merely its tallest portions.
“Delhi NCR airshed is already under severe and recurring AQI stress, with particulate pollution, dust load and seasonal spikes creating a continuing public health emergency affecting children, senior citizens, persons with co-morbidities and outdoor workers. The Aravalli system functions as a natural barrier and sink that helps moderate dust movement and supports vegetative cover that surpasses resuspension of particulates. A definitional approach that inadvertently excludes large ridge-connected tracts can create an enabling condition for expanded mining/earthworks/construction, increasing dust generation and resuspension, thereby aggravating the already precarious AQI situation over time,” the letter reads
The issue carries significant implications for ongoing and future development projects in Haryana’s Aravalli belt, including areas around Gurugram, Faridabad and Nuh, where legal battles over mining and real-estate development have been particularly intense.
Additionally, legal observers note that any clarification by the apex court could set a wider precedent for how ecologically sensitive landscapes are identified across India. A shift away from rigid physical markers towards functional ecological criteria may reshape environmental clearances, zoning laws and future litigation involving fragile hill systems nationwide.
By writing to both the Chief Justice and the President, Gandhi has framed the matter not merely as a legal technicality but as a constitutional and environmental concern. The letter urges that what it describes as the systematic erosion of ecological safeguards through reductionist interpretations be urgently addressed at the highest institutional levels.
While the Supreme Court is yet to indicate whether it will formally take up the plea for review, the representation has reignited a broader debate on how India’s environmental jurisprudence balances development pressures with ecological realities. As climate stress intensifies and groundwater levels continue to decline across north India, the fate of the Aravallis, low ridges and all may once again test the court’s role as the final arbiter between economic growth and environmental survival.