Amid the Supreme Court's Monday decision to stay its own November 20 ruling that accepted the Centre's definitions for the 'Aravalli Hills' and the 'Aravalli Range', a new report sheds light on the Rajasthan government allegedly bending the rules imposed on this sensitive area.
In April this year, the Rajasthan government had quietly opened large parts of the hill terrain—falling under urban areas—to a set of construction activities, as per an Indian Express report.
This was done after the state's 'Model Regulations for Conservation of Hills in Urban Areas, 2024' was approved in April.
The new norms had reclassified hill slopes, paving the way for what it called "low-density" construction projects on the ecologically sensitive hill range.
The key change made to the 2018 hill conservation norms—which categorises hills in the state based on their gradient (slope)—was in the definition of Category B hills (those with middle-ground slopes of 8-15 degrees).
While categories A (below 8 degrees) and C (above 15 degrees) remained developable for urban planning and non-developable respectively, hill areas under Category B were made available for "low-density" projects, such as farmhouses, resorts, wellness centres, amusement parks, and solar projects.
This allowed resorts and wellness centres on plots that could be just 1-2 hectares in area, and farmhouses with specific coverage limits and hill cutting of up to 3m.
Under the changed definition, a major part of the Aravallis fell under Category B too, which reportedly allowed routine urban development in those areas under the guise of being regulated.
Experts have warned that this could cause serious, irreversible damage to the Aravallis.
The report also pointed out that even hilly areas under Category C were not safe, as exceptions were written in for public utilities, and for the state government to decide usage in case of "special circumstances".
Categories A and B also allegedly oppose the Forest Survey of India’s (FSI) 3-degree slope formula.
This counted all areas above the minimum elevation of an Aravalli state (115m in the case of Rajasthan) with a slope of at least 3 degrees as Aravalli.
Various state officials have offered contrasting responses when asked about this difference and the new hill conservation norms.
While some have sought to distance urban planning from the mining controversy at the Aravallis, others have defended the new norms, while some have also defended the Aravallis as well.