‘Waiting for me to retire?’: CJI Kant rejects extension request for Aravalli dispute report

She said the HPC is working on it and assured that the report will be submitted in two months.

The CJI remarked that “it is in the interest of everyone that the Committee submits the report… so that whatever is permissible can be permitted, whatever is impermissible cannot be permitted.”

What upset the bench was that a six-month extension would have meant that the report would not be submitted before the end of February, while CJI Kant demits office on February 9, 2027.

In its order, the court said, “…the prayer for grant of six months cannot be accepted. The High-Powered Committee is directed to work day and night and submit the report in all circumstances by November 30, 2026. No further extension can be granted.”

It added that “the HPC is well advised to submit an interim report meanwhile by segregating the specific issues…” so that they can be addressed on priority.

Some of the intervenors submitted that there was no effective hearing and those being heard were not getting more than a few seconds to present their concerns.

The CJI pointed out that the court had already said that the Committee must undertake a comprehensive consultation process and hear all stakeholders, including tribal communities in Rajasthan and Gujarat, whose interests may be affected.

Thereafter, the bench listed the matter for hearing next on December 2.

5-member High-Powered Committee

The Supreme Court had on May 25 set up a five-member HPC, with the director general of the Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education (ICFRE) as ex-officio Chairperson, to re-examine the definition of Aravallis, following a furore after an earlier bench accepted the 100-metre elevation definition proposed by a committee constituted by the government on the orders of the top court.

By its May 25 order, the Supreme Court asked the HPC to examine “whether the definition of the ‘Aravalli Hills and Ranges’, restricted exclusively to the 500-metre area between two or more Aravalli Hills, creates a structural paradox wherein the geographical scope of protected territory is significantly narrowed.”