SC cites ‘outcry among environmentalists’, ‘concern over misinterpretation’ while staying 100-metre Aravalli definition

The top court, which initiated suo motu proceedings following public outcry over its November 20 order, said environmentalists have expressed profound concern about the potential for misinterpretation and improper implementation of the 100-metre norm. “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,” the bench said, stressing the need to prevent any regulatory gaps that “might undermine the ecological integrity of the Aravalli region”.

Fixing the matter for hearing on January 21, the court kept in abeyance the committee’s recommendations and its own directions given on November 20, and issued notice to the Centre and the four states Delhi, Rajasthan, Haryana and Gujarat.

“The matter is to be listed before the Green Bench on the date fixed,” the bench said, and sought the assistance of Attorney General for India R Venkataramani, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, Senior Advocate K Parameshwar, who was the amicus curiae in the matter, and the court-appointed Central Empowered Committee (CEC).

Critical ambiguities, the need to resolve these
The court said it had to pause the order so it could clearly decide one, whether limiting “Aravalli hills and ranges” only to the 500‑metre stretch between two or more hills sharply narrows the area that gets protection, and two, whether this definition ends up turning many Aravalli areas into “non‑Aravalli”, making it easier for mining and other commercial activities to continue. If regulated mining were to be allowed in these gaps, it must be clarified what spatial parameters or lateral width would be utilised to define the extent of ‘Aravalli Range’ such that ecological continuity is not compromised.

Addressing the issues arising out of the 100-metre definition, the court said it needs to verify if the criticism that only 1,048 of Rajasthan’s 12,081 hills meet the rule is actually correct and scientifically sound. If this reveals a gap in regulation, the court said a full scientific and geological survey may be needed, and measuring the height of all hills and hillocks to decide what criteria are required to protect the Aravalli range’s overall structure and ecology.

As reported by The Indian Express on November 27, an internal assessment of its digitised data by the Forest Survey of India revealed that barely 1,048, or just 8.7%, of 12,081 Aravalli Hills which are 20 metre or higher, spread across 15 districts in Rajasthan, are 100 metres or more in height.

An aerial view of the Aravalli hills surrounded by dense human settlements in Haryana (Express Photo: Tashi Tobgyal)

While the 20 metre height cut-off is crucial for a hill’s function as a wind barrier, if all 1,18,575 Aravalli hills are considered, over 99 per cent will not make the 100-metre cut, according to the FSI’s internal assessment. The FSI conveyed its concerns to the Union environment ministry which decided to go ahead with the 100-meter definition anyway.

Aravalli Hills: ’indispensable ecological backbone’
Monday’s order also underlined the significance of the mountain formation. “Aravalli Hills and Range, frequently characterised as the ‘green lungs’ of North-Western India, have for centuries sustained diverse ecosystems and underpinned the livelihoods of numerous communities. It serves as the indispensable ecological and socio-economic backbone of the region, functioning as the primary geographical barrier separating the arid North-Western desert from the fertile Northern plains,” the court said.

A march for conservation of Aravallis, in Jaipur last week. (Express photo by Rohit Jain Paras)

The hills and ranges host some of the country’s most significant mineral deposits, it said. The bench also took note of claims that decades of unchecked urbanisation, systematic deforestation, and intensive resource extraction have exerted immense strain upon this inherently fragile ecosystem.

Dealing with questions arising out of mining in the Aravallis, the top court had in May 2024, noted that one of the major issues with regard to illegal mining was the different definitions of “Aravali Hills/Ranges”, as adopted by the different states. Accordingly, it directed the constitution of a committee to provide a “uniform definition of the Aravali Hills and Ranges.”

The Committee under the Union Environment Secretary recommended that “any landform located in the Aravali districts, having an elevation of 100 metres or more from the local relief, shall be termed as Aravali Hills” and that “two or more Aravali Hills, as defined at Para- 5.1.2 above, located within the proximity of 500 metres from each other, measured from the outermost point on the boundary of the lowest contour line on either side forms Aravali Range.”

Amicus flagged concern
As reported by The Indian Express on December 24, the CEC on October 14 had written to the amicus curiae assisting the bench that they did not examine or approve the recommendation. The CEC also underlined that the definition formulated by the FSI should be “adopted in order to ensure the protection and conservation of the ecology of the Aravalli Hills and its range.”

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by The Indian Express (@indianexpress)

Accordingly, the amicus told the court  that “if the definition as recommended by the Committee is accepted, all the hills below the height of 100 metres would be opened up for mining and as a result the Aravali Hills and Ranges would lose their continuity and integrity” and “would totally endanger the environment and ecology of the mountains.”

The Centre, however, pointed out that the “Committee itself has recommended that except in case of critical, strategic and atomic minerals, the mining activities would be prohibited in the core/inviolate areas” and also “made various recommendations in order to prevent rampant mining and permit only sustainable mining.”

In its November 20 judgment, the Supreme Court had accepted the Committee’s recommendation. It asked the Centre to prepare a Management Plan for Sustainable Mining “for the entire Aravalis” and barred the grant of new mining licences in the region before the plan is finalised.