Won’t pass order in favour of mining lease holders for now, says SC on Aravalli row
The Supreme Court on Friday said it won’t pass any order in favour of mining lease holders for now, as it has been getting “quite disturbing” feedback regarding mining in the Aravalli hills and range.
The apex court said there were specific ecological issues and in February, it had asked the environment ministry and other stakeholders to suggest names of domain experts for a panel to define the Aravalli hills and ranges.
“We will not hear this matter in a piecemeal (manner). We will not permit any activity unless we are fully satisfied,” a bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi said after the matter, listed for hearing on Friday, was mentioned.
The top court is hearing a suo motu case titled “In Re: Definition of Aravalli hills and ranges and ancillary issue”.
“Lot of things are happening there. We are getting feedback and it is quite disturbing,” the CJI observed.
The bench told the lawyer who mentioned the matter if any mining lease is cancelled, the concerned party may challenge it.
“We will not pass any order in favour of the mining lease holders now. This is a sensitive matter,” the bench said.
On November 20, 2025, the top court 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 accepted the recommendations of a ministry committee on the definition of the Aravalli hills and ranges to protect the world’s oldest mountain system.
The committee 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.
On December 29, the top court took note of the outcry over the new definition of the Aravallis and kept in abeyance its November 20 directions accepting a uniform definition of the hills and ranges. It had also stalled all mining activities.
It remarked that there was need to resolve “critical ambiguities”, including whether the criteria of 100-metre elevation and the 500-metre gap between hills would strip a significant portion of the range of environmental protection.
Earlier, the top court said it prima facie seemed that the earlier report of a committee and the verdict had “omitted to expressly clarify certain critical issues” and there is “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 a May 9, 2024, order, 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 had said.
