SC puts Aravallis definition on hold amid controversy

Amid the controversies over the new definition of Aravallis, the Supreme Court on Monday kept in abeyance its November 20 directions that accepted a uniform definition of these hills and ranges, saying there is a need to resolve “critical ambiguities” including whether the 100-metre elevation and the 500-metre gap between hills criteria will strip a significant portion of the range of environmental protection.

Proposing to constitute a high-powered expert panel, a vacation bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said it seemed prima facie that the earlier report of a committee and the verdict had “omitted to expressly clarify certain critical issues” and there is a “dire need to further probe” to prevent any regulatory gaps that might undermine the ecological integrity of the Aravalli region. It also directed that, as set out in the order dated May 9, 2024, until further orders, no permission shall be granted for mining in the ‘Aravalli Hills and Ranges’, as defined in the August 25, 2010, FSI report, without its prior permission.

“There has been a significant outcry among environmentalists, who have expressed profound concern about the potential for misinterpretation and improper implementation of the newly adopted definition and this court’s directions,” the bench, also comprising Justices JK Maheshwari and Augustine George Masih, said.

It said this public dissent and criticism appear to stem from perceived ambiguity and lack of clarity in certain terms and directives issued by the court.

“Consequently, there is a dire need to further probe and clarify to prevent any regulatory gaps that might undermine the ecological integrity of the Aravalli region,” the bench said in its order passed in a suo motu matter titled “In Re: Definition of Aravalli Hills and Ranges and Ancillary Issues.”

The top court had on November 20 accepted a uniform definition of the Aravalli hills and ranges and banned the grant of fresh mining leases inside its areas spanning Delhi, Haryana, Rajasthan and Gujarat until experts’ reports are out.

It had accepted the recommendations of a committee of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change on the definition of the Aravalli hills and ranges to protect the world’s oldest mountain system.

The committee had recommended that “Aravalli Hill” be defined as any landform in designated Aravalli districts with an elevation of 100 metres or more above its local relief, and an “Aravalli Range” will be a collection of two or more such hills within 500 metres of each other.

In its order passed on Monday, the bench noted the verdict has invited applications and pleas before it challenging the findings of the committee and the subsequent approval accorded by the court, while also seeking clarification on certain directions.

“While we have no scientific reasons justifying any ex-facie acceptance of the same, nor any cogent evidence or expert testimony to substantiate these individual contentions, nevertheless, it seems prima facie that both the committee’s report and the judgment of this court have omitted to expressly clarify certain critical issues,” it noted.

The bench said before the implementation of the committee’s report or the execution of the November 20 directions, a “fair, impartial, independent expert opinion” must be obtained and considered, after associating all requisite stakeholders.

“Such a step is essential to resolve critical ambiguities and to provide definitive guidance on issues such as, (i) whether the definition of the ‘Aravalli Hills and Ranges’, restricted exclusively to the 500-metre area between two or more Aravalli Hills, creates a structural paradox wherein the geographical scope of protected territory is significantly narrowed,” it said.

The bench said, consequently, it should be determined whether this restrictive demarcation has inversely broadened the scope of ‘non-Aravalli’ areas, thereby facilitating the continuation of unregulated mining and other disruptive activities in terrains that are ecologically contiguous but technically excluded by this definition.

“Whether the Aravalli Hills, characterised by an elevation of 100 metres and above, constitute a contiguous ecological formation even when the intervening distance exceeds the stipulated 500-metre threshold,” the bench said.

The bench further said, “Whether the widely publicised criticism asserting that only 1,048 hills out of 12,081 in Rajasthan meet the 100-metre elevation threshold, thereby stripping the remaining lower ranges of environmental protection, is factually and scientifically accurate”.

It said if this assessment correctly identifies a significant regulatory lacuna, it must be determined whether an exhaustive scientific and geological investigation is necessitated.

The bench proposed to constitute a high-powered expert panel to undertake a comprehensive assessment of the report submitted by the committee.

“This study shall constitute an exhaustive and holistic examination of the questions formulated above, and amongst others, the following parameters: (i) A definitive enumeration of the specific regions that fall within the scope of the recommended definition,” it said.

The bench issued notice to the Centre, Delhi, Rajasthan, Haryana and Gujarat and posted the matter for hearing on January 21.

“In the interim, to sub serve the ends of complete justice and in the broader public interest, we deem it necessary to direct that the recommendations submitted by the committee, together with the findings and directions stipulated by this court in its judgment dated November 20, 2025, be kept in abeyance,” it said.

The bench said this stay shall remain in effect until the present proceedings reach a state of logical finality, ensuring that no irreversible administrative or ecological actions are taken based on the current framework.