Supreme Court puts November ruling on Aravalli definition on hold, bars new mining leases

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday kept in abeyance its November 20 judgment that had upheld a government expert panel’s narrow definition of the Aravalli hills.

The earlier ruling had limited the Aravalli range to hills with an elevation of 100 metres or more, and to hill clusters, slopes and hillocks located within 500 metres of each other.

Staying the judgment, the court said the order will remain in force until the matter reaches “logical finality”, so that no irreversible administrative or environmental damage is caused in the meantime. It also directed that no fresh or renewed mining leases be granted without prior permission of the apex court.

The restrictive definition had triggered widespread concern in Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Haryana and Delhi. Environmentalists warned that shrinking the protected area could open the door to large-scale mining in the Aravalli range, which acts as a natural barrier against the spread of the Thar desert and helps reduce air pollution in cities, including Delhi.

A three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant took suo motu cognisance of reports suggesting that, in Rajasthan alone, only 1,048 out of 12,081 Aravalli hills would meet the 100-metre height criterion. If correct, the court noted, this would strip a large number of hills of environmental protection and create a “significant regulatory lacuna”.

The Bench proposed setting up a high-powered committee to examine whether so-called “sustainable” or “regulated” mining in the newly defined Aravalli areas could still cause ecological harm.

The panel would also study areas excluded by the definition and assess whether their exclusion could lead to degradation or eventual loss, affecting the overall ecological health of the Aravalli range.

The proposed committee would carry out both short-term and long-term assessments of environmental impacts arising from the implementation of the new definition and related directions.

The court said several key questions need clearer answers. One concern was whether the narrow demarcation had effectively expanded “non-Aravalli” areas, allowing unregulated mining and other disruptive activities in ecologically connected regions that are technically left out.

The Bench stressed that the definition of the Aravalli range must be based on detailed scientific and geological studies, with accurate measurement of all hills and hillocks. Any final definition, it said, must be more balanced and nuanced to protect the “ecological integrity of the entire range”.

Representing the government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the court that acceptance of the Environment Ministry committee’s recommendations had led to “misconceptions and misrepresentations” in the public domain.

He pointed out that the November judgment had already directed the preparation of a ‘Management Plan for Sustainable Mining’ by the Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education, subject to Supreme Court approval, and had halted new mining leases in the interim.

Responding, Chief Justice Kant said further clarifications were still needed. He emphasised the need for independent expert opinions and wider consultation with stakeholders to remove ambiguities and provide clear guidance.

The court also questioned the 500-metre clustering rule, warning that it could create a “structural paradox” by sharply reducing the protected area. It asked whether hills that are part of the Aravalli terrain but separated by gaps of more than 500 metres would be left open to unregulated mining, potentially damaging even the protected zones.

Raising another key issue, the Bench asked whether Aravalli hills taller than 100 metres but spaced more than 500 metres apart would fall within the protected definition at all.

Underlining the urgency of fixing clear and scientifically sound parameters, the court listed the suo motu case for further hearing on January 21.