In a rare course correction, the Supreme Court on Monday placed its own November 20 ruling on the Aravalli Hills in abeyance, acknowledging that the definition it had approved could have far-reaching environmental consequences. The bench said key clarifications were required before any framework governing mining and protection in the ancient hill range could be implemented.
A Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices J.K. Maheshwari and A.G. Masih, said the ecological impact of narrowing the definition of the Aravalli range had not been sufficiently examined. The court stayed the operation of its earlier judgment, which had accepted the Union environment ministry’s definition restricting the Aravallis largely to hills rising above 100 metres.
Why the definition matters
The Aravalli range stretches across Gujarat, Rajasthan, Haryana and Delhi, acting as a natural barrier against desertification and playing a critical role in groundwater recharge for large parts of north-western India. Any dilution of its protection, environmentalists warn, directly affects water security, air quality and climate resilience, particularly in the National Capital Region.
The November ruling had raised serious concerns by potentially exposing vast tracts of land to regulated mining. While the court had banned fresh mining leases until expert reports were finalised, critics argued that the very definition adopted could legitimise future exploitation.
On Monday, the bench appeared to echo those concerns, stressing that environmental adjudication cannot be reduced to numerical or administrative convenience.
‘Structural Paradox’ in the proposed framework
The CJI pointed to what the court described as a structural paradox created by the revised definition. By shrinking the protected Aravalli zone to a narrow belt, the framework risked expanding areas that could be classified as non-Aravalli and thus opened up for regulated mining.
The court questioned whether the restrictive demarcation had inadvertently created artificial non-Aravalli regions within an otherwise continuous ecological system. It also sought clarity on whether mining would be allowed in the geographical gaps between hill formations.
Raising a concrete example, the bench asked how the law would treat two hill formations exceeding 100 metres in height that are separated by a gap of 700 metres.
Concern over gaps and ecological continuity
Emphasising that ecosystems do not function in fragments, the court said the structural integrity of the Aravalli range must be preserved as a whole. Allowing mining in gaps between hills, it cautioned, could irreversibly weaken the range’s environmental functions.
also read
- Aravalli row: Did Rajasthan govt allow 'low-density' construction in sensitive hill areas?
- Aravalli row: Supreme Court steps in as protests mount, to hear the matter on Monday
- Youth Congress to hold ‘Aravalli Satyagraha Yatra’ across states
- ‘Wrong to conclude mining allowed below 100 metres’: Centre amid 'Save Aravalli' protests
The judges underlined that if a significant regulatory lacuna was found, a comprehensive reassessment would be required to address the shortcomings. “An exhaustive, scientific determination is required,” the bench observed.
Fresh high-powered expert committee proposed
Taking note that the earlier panel whose recommendations formed the basis of the November ruling was largely composed of bureaucrats, the court proposed constituting a fresh high-powered expert committee comprising domain specialists.
The proposed committee will be tasked with holistically examining all earlier reports on the Aravalli definitions, identifying areas that would be excluded from protection, and analysing whether regulated mining in such areas would result in ecological damage.
Crucially, the court directed that the recommendations of all previous committees, as well as its own November judgment, remain in abeyance until the expert review is completed.
Centre and states put on notice
The Supreme Court also issued notice to the Centre and the four Aravalli states — Rajasthan, Gujarat, Haryana and Delhi in its ongoing suo motu proceedings. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, told the court that misconceptions had been created and clarified that directions had already been issued to ensure no fresh mining licences are granted.
The matter has now been listed for further hearing on January 21, 2026.