Opinion Aravallis need the Supreme Court’s shield

The threats to the Aravallis are well documented. On more than one occasion in the past 30 years, the Supreme Court has ruled against violations of environmental norms in the mountain range. Last year, the Court found that the inconsistency in criteria used to define the hills was one of the major reasons for illegal quarrying in the Aravallis. It asked the Union environment ministry to establish a committee to frame a scientifically grounded definition of the mountain range. The panel submitted its report in October, and the apex court gave its imprimatur about a month later. However, the new criteria to define the Aravalli hills — only landforms at an elevation of 100 metres or more should be considered as part of the mountain system — has invited controversy. Fears of the destruction of the country’s oldest mountain range have triggered protests in several parts of Rajasthan.

The yardstick now accepted by the Court goes against the red flags raised by expert agencies, including — as pointed out by a report in this newspaper — its own amicus curiae and the CEC, the panel that advises the SC on environment-related matters and monitors the compliance of its orders. The environment ministry’s agency, the Forest Survey of India, had told the ministry that the 100-metre height filter would exclude 91.3 per cent of 12,081 Aravalli hills 20 metres or higher, spread across 15 districts in Rajasthan. The FSI’s internal assessment also shows that if all 1,18,575 Aravalli hills are considered, over 99 per cent will not meet the new criteria.

Advertisement

Several reports — including a survey by SC’s CEC in 2018 — have underlined that the Aravallis have lost a fourth of their hills. The SC’s past rulings have pointed out that the destruction of the hills could lead to the Thar desert expanding towards the Indo-Gangetic plains and worsen air pollution in Delhi-NCR. However, its acceptance of a definition that effectively reduces a range stretching over more than 650 km to a few scattered hills does not square with the SC’s formidable jurisprudence on not just the Aravallis but on environmental matters at large. From the verdict in the M C Mehta case (1996), which emphasised strict enforcement of the polluter pays principle, to the landmark judgment last year, which recognises that people have a right to be protected against the destruction of nature, the Court has been a steadfast supporter of ecological concerns. In the wake of the impasse over what constitutes the Aravallis, the SC should continue to do what its own experts have emphasised — shield the mountain range.