THE OPPOSITION Congress recently attacked the BJP-led NDA government over the new definition of Aravallis, limiting the hills to landforms at an elevation of 100 metres or more, calling it a “death warrant” for the range.
Now, a note submitted by the amicus curiae to the Supreme Court says it was the “state of Rajasthan” which “for the first time…gave a restrictive definition to the Aravallis, as only applying to those hills measuring above 100 metres” adding this was “to overcome” certain other orders of the court. According to the note, the decision dates back to February 2010, when Rajasthan was under a Congress government led by Chief Minister Ashok Gehlot.
In his written submissions to the top court, which is seized of the issue of definition of Aravalli Hills, amicus Senior Advocate K Parameshwar said: “What is evident from the arguments is that in order to continue mining activities in areas which constituted the Aravalli Hills, the state of Rajasthan gave a restrictive definition to the Aravallis, as only applying to those hills measuring above 100 metres.”
“This became apparent in the arguments recorded in order dated February 19, 2010” that came on contempt petitions alleging violation of the SC order dated December 16, 2002, the note said. It pointed out that the SC then recorded in its order: “Learned amicus curiae pointed out that according to the deemed definition given by the state of Rajasthan, only peaks/parts of hills that are 100 mts above the ground level are to be treated as ‘Aravali Hills’ and the slopes/peaks that are below that point (100 mts from the ground level) are not to be treated as ‘Aravalli Hills’.”
Delving further into the history, Parameshwar pointed out that it was on May 5, 1992, that the Union Environment Ministry issued a notification “recognising for the first time that the Aravalli Hills require protection and conservation”. It said, “In the districts of Gurgaon and Alwar, the MoEF prohibited the carrying on of certain activities, including new mining operations and renewal of existing mining leases without prior permission of the Central government in the ‘Aravalli Range’.”
On May 10, 1996, the SC directed protection of the Aravalli Hills in Surajkund and Badhkal districts of Haryana by banning mining in these areas, it said, adding that ever since, the top court has repeatedly stepped in to protect the Aravalli Hills in Delhi, Haryana and Rajasthan.
On October 29/30, 2002, the SC, while considering the issue of illegal mining in certain areas in Kote and Alampur village, where a green belt was being set up with funding from Japan, “banned mining in all the Aravalli Hills”, not limited only to the hills encircling Kote and Alampur Villages but extending to the entire hill range of Aravalli from Dholpur to Rajasthan.
The note said that by this order, “For the first time, this court recognised the Aravallis as a contiguous ecosystem and directed protection from mining in the ‘Aravalli hills’.”
It pointed out that after this, the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) submitted a report dated December 14, 2002, “inter alia recommending extension of the protection under” the May 1992, “notification…for the entire Aravalli hills range which extends to about 692 kms from Delhi, Haryana Rajasthan and Gujarat”. At the same time, Haryana and Rajasthan applied for modification of the October 29/30, 2002 order.
On December 16, 2002, the SC considered the CEC report as well as the applications by the states and modified its October 29/30 order. It partly allowed the applications permitting mining in areas where relevant statutory permissions had already been accorded.
Among others, the CEC report also suggested asking the MoEF to undertake “a comprehensive study” for the entire Aravalli hills range. It also said that the government may consider the advisability of extending the May 7, 1992 notification to the remaining parts of the Aravallis so that mining and other activities can be continued on a sustainable basis without destroying the life supporting systems in the region.
Though the December 16 order shows that the Centre was to “respond on the next date of hearing…the later orders do not indicate that the suggestions were ever taken up”.
The note said, “The issue of definition of the Aravalli Hills was first raised on February 19, 2010 by the state of Rajasthan to overcome the orders dated 29/30.10.2002 and 16.12.2002”, when the court was dealing with contempt petitions alleging violation of its December 16, 2002 order.
This, it added, is reflected in the court’s February 19 order which said: “Learned amicus curiae pointed out that according to the deemed definition given by the state of Rajasthan, only peaks/parts of hills that are 100 mts above the ground level are to be treated as ‘Aravali Hills’.”
The 2010 order asked the Forest Survey of India (FSI) to carry out satellite imagery of the entire Aravallis in Rajasthan without confining it to “peaks/parts of above 100 mts, from the ground level” as suggested by the state.
The amicus’s note also indicts the current BJP-led NDA government at the Centre for withholding from the SC as well the committee constituted by the government on SC orders, an FSI report “highlighting the importance of hills of varied heights”.
The FSI report dated September 22, 2025, also on the definition of the hill range, submitted to the Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forest and Climate Change “has been completely suppressed by the MoEFCC in the present proceedings. No mention has been made of it in the extensive affidavit filed (before the SC) by the MoEFCC… The committee, too, did not deal with the contents of the report,” the amicus said, adding, “This is important to note, as the committee defines the ‘Aravalli Hills’ solely on the basis of height, disregarding the FSI’s opinion as to the importance of lower lying hills”.
The amicus said the “FSI…disagreed with the final definition” of the committee “and proposed its own definition”. The DG, FSI addressed an email dated October 7, 2025, providing an alternative definition but “the Aravalli Committee Report does not mention the FSI’s disagreement or address the same”.
The note added that before the committee, “the state of Rajasthan” by which time was ruled by BJP, “once again reiterated its stand that hills above 100 metres alone could be considered to be part of the Aravallis”.
On November 20, 2025, the SC accepted the 100 metre definition proposed by a Committee.
A storm followed after which the SC on December 29, 2025, directed that the November decision “be kept in abeyance” till a high-powered committee of domain experts undertakes a comprehensive assessment of the report of the earlier committee.
The court also sought the amicus curiae’s view in the matter. The amicus’ note said the 100-metre definition suffers from an inherent defect, which is that it is only for the purpose of operationalising mining, which “goes contrary to the conservation needs of this geomorphological landscape, and views each hill in isolation, resulting in a fragmentation of the range”.
Names for panel
Hearing the matter on Thursday, the SC asked the Environment Ministry and other parties to suggest names for the panel which will look into the definition of Aravalli hills.
The court said it is aware that mining even by licensed firms in the region have come to a halt and added that “such a status quo will have to be maintained for the time being till some preliminary issues are answered in a phased manner”.
The court said it is aware that mining even by licensed firms in the region have come to a halt and added that "such a status quo will have to be maintained for the time being till some preliminary issues are answered in a phased manner".
Share
