NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India on Monday stayed its own earlier order that had accepted a revised definition of the Aravalli Hills, acknowledging that the formulation raised serious ecological concerns and contained critical ambiguities requiring further examination.
A vacation bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant, along with Justices J K Maheshwari and Augustine George Masih, ordered the constitution of a high-powered expert committee to revisit the issue and ensure that no regulatory gaps emerge that could compromise the ecological integrity of one of the world’s oldest mountain systems.
The court kept in abeyance its November 20 directions, which had endorsed a new definition proposed by a committee of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. That definition described an “Aravalli Hill” as any landform in designated districts with an elevation of 100 metres or more above local relief, and an “Aravalli Range” as a cluster of two or more such hills located within 500 metres of each other.
The revised criteria had triggered widespread concern among environmentalists, who argued that the restrictive elevation threshold and spacing parameters could significantly shrink the area qualifying for ecological protection, potentially opening large tracts of the Aravallis to mining, construction and other commercial activities.
Taking note of the public outcry, the Supreme Court observed that its earlier order and the committee report appeared to have omitted clarity on several crucial aspects. The bench said there was a “dire need” to probe the matter further to prevent misinterpretation and improper implementation that could undermine environmental safeguards.
The court also reiterated that, as directed earlier on May 9, 2024, no permission shall be granted for mining in the Aravalli Hills and Ranges as defined in the August 25, 2010 Forest Survey of India report, without prior approval of the apex court, until further orders are passed.
“This public dissent and criticism stem from perceived ambiguity and lack of clarity in certain terms and directives,” the bench noted, adding that judicial intervention was necessary to maintain regulatory coherence and ecological balance.
The matter is being examined suo motu under the title In Re: Definition of Aravalli Hills and Ranges and Ancillary Issues, reflecting the court’s proactive role in environmental governance.
Union Environment Minister Bhupender Yadav welcomed the Supreme Court’s decision, stating that the government remains fully committed to the protection, conservation and restoration of the Aravalli ecosystem.
Environmentalists who had opposed the revised definition also hailed the order. Many environmental activists said the unchecked mining in the Aravallis reflected serious administrative and governance failures, and described the court’s intervention as timely and necessary. They stressed that the proposed expert committee must include ecologists and environmental scientists, and not be limited to bureaucratic representation.