New Delhi, Dec 29 (.) The Supreme Court on Monday ordered halting of all mining work on Aravalli and formed a committee of independent experts to arrive at the final definition of the mountain range as to what can be deemed ecologically sensitive and what be opened for mining.The latest order supersedes the earlier order in which SC had accepted the definition of hill ecosystem as finalised by committees formed largely by the government. The SC took notice of the hue and cry raised by several environmentalists who suspected government-backed committees were actually diluting the rules to favour mining companies.
A largely plateaued mountain range straddling Delhi, Haryana, Rajasthan and Gujarat, the Aravalli range is home to honey-badger, Indian fox, jungle cat, and ruddy mongoose and a variety of birdlife because of its favourable microclimatic conditions.
The SC noted “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. This public dissent and criticism appear to stem from the perceived ambiguity and lack of clarity in certain terms and directives issued by this 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.”
As per SC order, “prior to the implementation of the Committee’s Report, or the execution of the directions containedin this Court’s judgment on 20 November 2025, a fair, impartial, independent expert opinion must be obtained and considered, after associating all requisite stakeholders.
SC said such a step is essential to resolve critical ambiguities and to provide definitive guidance on issues such as:
“Whether the definition of the ‘Aravalli Hills and Ranges’, restricted exclusively to the 500-meter area between two or more Aravalli Hills, creates a structural paradox wherein the geographical scope of protected territory is significantly narrowed.
“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 meters and above, constitute a contiguous ecological formation even when the intervening distance exceeds the stipulated 500-meter threshold. Furthermore, in such instances, it must be clarified whether regulated mining would be permissible in these gaps. If so, what precise spatial parameters or lateral width would be utilized to define the extent of the ‘Aravalli Range’ to ensure that ecological continuity is not compromised?
“Whether the widely publicised criticism asserting that only 1,048 hills out of 12,081 in Rajasthan meet the 100-meter elevation threshold, thereby stripping the remaining lower ranges of environmental protection, is factually and scientifically accurate. In the event this assessment correctly identifies a significant regulatory lacuna, it must be determined whether an exhaustive scientific and geological investigation is necessitated. Such an inquiry would involve the precise measurement of all hill and hillock elevations to facilitate a more nuanced and ‘measured’ assessment of the criteria required to maintain the structural and ecological integrity of the entire range.
“Whether there exist any supplementary issues or systemic vulnerabilities that may emerge during the course of these proceedings that necessitate this Court’s intervention.”
. PRP SRY
