On October 13, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF & CC) proposed a new 100-metre definition for Aravallis to the Supreme Court. The very next day, the apex court’s Central Empowered Committee (CEC) wrote to the amicus curiae assisting the bench that they did not examine or approve the recommendation.
The CEC is a body set up by the SC in 2002 to monitor and ensure compliance of its orders related to environment and forests.
The FSI had mapped 40,481 sq km as Aravallis in 15 districts of Rajasthan as areas above the minimum elevation with a slope of at least 3 degrees.
The FSI had mapped 40,481 sq km as Aravallis in 15 districts of Rajasthan as areas above the minimum elevation with a slope of at least 3 degrees. By this definition, even the lower hills would be protected as Aravallis. The FSI undertook the exercise after it was engaged by the CEC under a Supreme Court order in 2010.
When asked by The Indian Express if the CEC’s stand against the ministry’s 100-metre definition of Aravalli was conveyed to the SC bench led by then Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, amicus curiae K Parmeshwar declined to comment.
But in a powerpoint presentation titled “Implications and pitfalls of the new definition of Aravalli Hill and Ranges” to the court, the amicus curiae relied heavily on the FSI material to oppose the ministry’s 100-metre definition.
In the presentation, reviewed by The Indian Express, Parmeshwar pointed out the “integrity of the Aravali as a geographical feature is lost due to this (100-metre) definition”. It said this “will cause dispersal and the geographical feature of the Aravali is not conserved” and concluded that “the approach suggested by the MoEF&CC is vague and cannot be accepted.”
In May 2024, the SC had asked the ministry to form a committee under the Environment Secretary to “come out with a uniform definition” for Aravalli to protect the hills from mining. Dr JR Bhatt represented the CEC in the committee.
In the October 14 letter to the amicus curiae, CEC chairman and former director general (forests) Siddhant Das wrote that the CEC asked Dr Bhatt for the draft minutes of the committee’s October 3 meeting “for proper examination and for taking a considered view.”
“No such draft minutes have been placed before the committee till date and no examination of the report prepared by MoEFCC has been done by the CEC. Hence, the views attributed to the CEC in the affidavit filed by the MoEF&CC are, in fact, those of Dr JR Bhatt and not of the CEC,” the letter said.
The report, submitted by the ministry as part of its affidavit, was unsigned.
In fact, the October 14 letter underlined that the CEC “is of the considered opinion that the definition” used by the FSI should be adopted instead.
When contacted, chairman Das said the CEC was “not supposed to comment” on judicial matters. CEC member Dr JR Bhatt also declined to comment.
Using a map (see graphic) showing the Aravalli boundary as delineated according to the FSI’s definition, Parmeshwar wrote: “The blue lines represent the base or foothill contours from where hill formation begins, while the green line marks the Aravalli boundary, including its buffer area. It can be observed that multiple hillocks lie within this boundary, a phenomenon common throughout the range and not confined to any specific location.”
However, he went on to explain, “if the proposed (100-metre) definition is applied, such hillocks will not be recognised as part of the Aravallis and may consequently be opened for mining. This would undoubtedly result in severe ecological consequences, including the further eastward expansion of the Thar Desert.”
Parmeshwar concluded that “the approach suggested by the MoEF&CC is vague and cannot be accepted”.
In a tweet this evening, the FSI said it “categorically refutes claims in certain sections of the media that it has carried out any study showing that 90% of the hills in Aravalli would be left unprotected following the recent judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court.”
On November 26, The Indian Express quoted an internal assessment — not any study — by the FSI that flagged to the ministry and the CEC that the 100-metre definition would exclude 91.3 per cent of 12,081 Aravalli Hills 20 metre or higher, spread across 15 districts in Rajasthan.
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.
On Monday, Environment minister Bhupender Yadav told the media in New Delhi that mining is allowed in only 0.19 per cent of the entire Aravalli spanning 1.44 lakh sq mt — or just 278 sq km. However, the ministry’s own data shows that this 278 sq km is the total area already under mining in Aravalli across Rajasthan, Gujarat and Haryana.
The ministry is yet to address the future scope for mining and other developments in the lower segments of Aravallis once they are excluded under the 100-metre definition.
The minister also said that the extent of Aravalli areas covered under the 100-metre definition would be known only after the ground demarcation is completed. In such a scenario, it remains unclear how the ministry assured the SC that more areas will be counted as Aravalli under the 100-metre formula compared to FSI’s 3-degree definition.
In its October 14 letter reviewed by The Indian Express, the CEC underlined that the definition formulated by the Forest Survey of India (FSI) should be “adopted in order to ensure the protection and conservation of the ecology of the Aravalli Hills and its range.”
The FSI had mapped 40,481 sq km as Aravallis in 15 districts of Rajasthan as areas above the minimum elevation with a slope of at least 3 degrees.
Share
