SC keeps Aravalli Hills directions in abeyance, seeks high-powered expert panel

Supreme Court on Monday kept in abeyance its earlier directions on the revised definition of the Aravalli Hills, observing that the expert committee’s report as well as the Court’s remarks were being misconstrued.

Hearing a suo motu case, a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice J K Maheshwari and Justice Augustine George Masih said further clarification was required before the report or the Court’s directions could be implemented.

The Bench issued notice in the matter, making it returnable on January 21. “We deem it necessary that Committee recommendation and directions of this Court be kept in abeyance. Stay to remain in effect till constitution of the Committee,” the Court said.

The suo motu proceedings were initiated after concerns emerged that the revised definition of the Aravalli Hills could weaken environmental safeguards and facilitate unregulated mining, leading to ecological degradation.

The Court stressed that a fair, independent and impartial expert assessment was essential before any implementation. It noted apprehensions that the revised definition may have created a structural paradox by broadening the scope of non-Aravalli areas, thereby allowing mining activities to continue.

The Bench said several key issues needed examination, including whether regulated mining would be permitted in the 500-metre gaps between hills and, if so, what structural criteria would be applied to preserve ecological continuity. It also said the claim that only 1,048 out of 12,081 hills meet the 100-metre elevation threshold must be verified and assessed scientifically, including through a geological enquiry if required.

Chief Justice Surya Kant said the Court proposed to constitute a high-powered expert committee to comprehensively review the report and address these concerns. The exercise would also involve identifying territories excluded from the Aravalli region and evaluating whether such exclusions could compromise the ecological integrity of the mountain range.

The Bench issued notice and sought assistance from Attorney General for India R Venkataramani and senior advocate P S Parmeswar, including suggestions on the composition of the proposed committee. During the hearing, the Solicitor General informed the Court that notices had already been issued to the states directing that no further mining activity be undertaken.

The Court had taken suo motu cognisance following public protests and concerns raised by environmental groups and civil society organisations, who warned that diluting the definition of the Aravalli Hills—an ecologically vital region that prevents desertification and sustains groundwater levels—could legitimise mining and construction in areas previously treated as protected.

The issue stemmed from differing definitions of the Aravalli Hills and Aravalli Ranges across Delhi, Haryana, Rajasthan and Gujarat, which had led to regulatory gaps and instances of illegal mining. To address these inconsistencies, the Supreme Court had earlier constituted a high-level committee.

In a judgment delivered in November, the Court accepted the operational definition recommended by a committee of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change for mining-related purposes.

As per the accepted definition, “Aravalli Hills” refers to any landform in designated districts with a minimum elevation of 100 metres from the local relief, including supporting slopes and connected landforms, while an “Aravalli Range” consists of two or more such hills located within 500 metres of each other.

While approving the definition, the Court had also directed the Union government to prepare a comprehensive sustainable mining management plan before allowing any new mining activity in the ecologically sensitive Aravalli region.
(With Live Law Inputs)