Opinion The Aravallis protected Delhi-NCR from pollution. New definition, opening up to mining will end that
Excluding hills below 100 metres in the Aravallis would be an ecological disaster for entire NCR, creating even more gaps in the Aravalli shield, further increasing the particulate matter in the air leading to cascading effect on pollution and desertification
The role of the MoEF, while paying lip service to mitigating pollution in NCR through the Aravalli Green Wall, and on the other hand advocating the destruction of the Aravallis which hold the last vestiges of natural biodiversity of this region, by this “definitional exclusion” reeks of regulatory capture, raising questions both about its abilities and intentions, and of the academic independence of the institutions under it. File By M D Sinha and Chetan Agarwal
In 1991, mining was at its peak in Faridabad and real estate firms were advertising hill homes. This resulted in the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change’s Aravalli Notification of 1992 prohibiting mining and real estate in the Aravallis in the districts of Gurgaon and Alwar – the Faridabad mining lobby was too powerful to touch. It took a series of orders by the Supreme Court from 2002 onwards to ban the same. This was done by the Court without resorting to any “Aravalli Definition”.
Since 1992, the attempts to go around these restrictions have been incessant, namely: One, as revenue records do not mention “Aravallis” — they do not exist (other than in Gurgaon due to the 1992 notification being a fait accompli); two, only hills higher than 100 metres are Aravallis; three, only hills 500 millions years or older are Aravallis.
In fact, in view of the 1992 notification identifying Aravalli Landforms, the need for defining the Aravallis today is questionable. Meanwhile , following Court orders in 2010, the Forest Survey of India (FSI) delineated the Aravallis in Rajasthan — as covering four million hectares.
It is with this background that we must view the present order of the Supreme Court on defining Aravallis and preparation of a sustainable mining management plan. The Court had set up a MoEF committee to come up with a uniform definition of the Aravallis with the stated intent of protecting the Aravallis and balance mining with conservation.
However, the MoEF in a complete volte face of its earlier stand submitted a report recommending the 100 metres criteria. Earlier, FSI (under MoeF) had recommended a minimum of 3 degree slope criteria after extensive ground-truthing in Rajasthan which had been endorsed by the Supreme Court’s Central Empowered Committee in March 2024.
Our review of height contours in official maps and Google Earth suggests that nearly 90 per cent of the Aravallis in Haryana would be excluded under the 100 metres criteria depending on how it is implemented. The MoEF justifies its stand, implying 12 districts have less than 3 degrees average slope (thereby implying that the 3 degree slope FSI criteria would exclude large areas), when taking average slope in the plains is irrelevant and mere obfuscation.
What it needed to do was to compare the 3 degree methodology vi-a-vis the 100 metres one. If the mimimum of 3 degree slope criteria had identified 4 million ha as Aravallis in Rajasthan, how much Aravallis would be identified by the 100 metres minimum elevation criteria?
The report in The Indian Express states that the FSI had assessed the impact of the 100 metre criteria and concluded that this would exclude more than 90 per cent of the hills in Rajasthan including smaller hills less than 20 metres in height numbering over a lakh. It seems that the ministry did not find this convenient.
On the contrary, the Assistant Solicitor General (ASG), who took great pains to demonstrate coverage of the 100 metre criteria, categorically submitted before the Court on behalf of the ministry that the experts felt, from the extensive discussion and the data before them, that the 3 degree approach would actually eliminate more areas than the 100 metres criteria. This assertion was accepted by the Court and recorded in its judgment. The FSI data in The Indian Express article suggests that this is incorrect.
Apparently, not all members signed the report nor did the CEC review it formally. The MoEF also conveniently brushed under the carpet its own Aravalli Notification of 1992, which identified the Aravallis landforms entered in the revenue records – primarily gair mumkin pahar in both Haryana and Rajasthan, and which was the basis for identifying Aravallis in the entire National Capital Region by the NCRPB in 2017.
While the 100 metres definition of Aravallis is ostensibly only for the purposes of mining, realty companies shall press for its uniform application for real estate in NCR. Excluding hills below 100 metres in the Aravallis would be an ecological disaster for entire NCR, creating even more gaps in the Aravalli shield, further increasing the particulate matter in the air leading to cascading effect on pollution and desertification.
The role of the MoEF, while paying lip service to mitigating pollution in NCR through the Aravalli Green Wall, and on the other hand advocating the destruction of the Aravallis which hold the last vestiges of natural biodiversity of this region, by this “definitional exclusion” reeks of regulatory capture, raising questions both about its abilities and intentions, and of the academic independence of the institutions under it.
Sinha is retired Principal Secretary, Government of Haryana and Agarwal has worked extensively on the Aravallis
Share
