SC stays 100-metre Aravalli definition | Suo motu review, same bench strength: Why this is a rare recall order

The Court has, in the past, reviewed its rulings following widespread public outcry. Such self-correction by the SC, although extremely rare, has been at the behest of litigants or the executive. The suo motu intervention follows days of demonstrations against what was seen as a dilution of protections for the critical ecological barrier.

In February 2019, a bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra had ordered states to evict or take appropriate legal action against all forest dwellers whose land claims under the Forest Rights Act were rejected. Just two weeks later, in the face of public criticism, the same SC bench stayed its own order and directed states to follow due process. The Centre had moved an application seeking modification of the order.

In March 2018, a two-judge bench comprising Justices Justice Adarsh Goel and UU Lalit had, in a ruling issued “safeguards” that restricted arrests under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The ruling triggered protests, and the SC, in a review, referred the issue to a larger bench and subsequently recalled its controversial judgment. However, in that case too, the Centre had sought a review and even introduced an amendment to the law to nullify the effect of the ruling, even before a review was heard.

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

The SC’s hurried suo motu intervention also speaks to how the Court perceives its own image as a guardian of India’s environment. The SC has taken up the environment as a popular cause in its public interest litigation, building much of its public credibility. Monitoring the national capital’s air pollution matter through the continuing mandamus MC Mehta case since 1984, the push for converting Delhi’s public transport fleet to Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) came from the SC. In the 1995 Godavarman Thirumulpad v Union of India case, it. took up forest conservation, tightening the norms for reducing forest cover or cutting trees for development projects.

Even in the Aravallis, as early as 1996, the SC had prohibited mining and construction activities in parts of Haryana and cracked down on illegal mining in the mountain range. A bench headed by Justice Gavai in 2023 had, in fact, prohibited the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) from allotting land in the Delhi Ridge area, stressing its ecological importance.