Aravalli row: SC extends its order keeping in abeyance its November 20 directions

The Supreme Court on Wednesday extended its last month’s order keeping in abeyance its November 20 controversial order that approved an elevation-linked definition for classifying landforms as part of the Aravalli range — spanning across Delhi, Haryana, Rajasthan and Gujarat — for the purpose of mining regulation.

Noting that illegal mining could lead to irreversible damage, a Bench led by CJI Surya Kant said it will constitute an expert committee of domain experts to undertake an exhaustive and holistic examination of mining and related issues in the Aravallis.

The Bench — which also included Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi — asked Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, amicus curiae K Parameshwar and others to suggest in four weeks names of environmentalists and scientists having expertise in mining for setting up an expert panel to look into the issue.

The committee will work under the direction and supervision of top court, the CJI said. The Bench was informed that illegal mining was taking place at scattered places.

It took on record an assurance given by Additional Solicitor General K M Nataraj on behalf of the Rajasthan government that no such unauthorised mining shall be allowed.

Noting that “There has been a significant outcry among environmentalists, who have expressed profound concern about the potential for misinterpretation and improper implementation of the newly adopted definition and this Court’s directions, the Bench had said, “This public dissent and criticism appear to stem from the perceived ambiguity and lack of clarity in certain terms and directives issued by this Court. Consequently, there is a dire need to further probe and clarify to prevent any regulatory gaps that might undermine the ecological integrity of the Aravalli region.”

Often described as the ‘green lungs’ of North Western India, the Aravallis have for centuries sustained diverse ecosystems and underpinned the livelihoods of numerous communities.

“It serves as the indispensable ecological and socio-economic backbone of the region, functioning as the primary geographical barrier separating the arid North Western desert from the fertile Northern plains,” the Bench noted.

Noting that certain clarifications were needed regarding the definitions of Aravalli Hills it recently approved, the Supreme Court had on December 29 ordered to keep in abeyance its November 20 order that was based on a committee’s recommendations.

The Special Bench had decided to set up a new high-powered committee of domain experts to examine the environmental impact of the recommendations made by an earlier committee. The composition of the committee has not been announced.

“In the interim, to subserve the ends of complete justice and in the broader public interest, we deem it necessary to direct that the recommendations submitted by the Committee, together with the findings and directions stipulated by this Court in its judgment dated November 20, 2025, be kept in abeyance,” it had said.

“This stay shall remain in effect until the present proceedings reach a state of logical finality, ensuring that no irreversible administrative or ecological actions are taken based on the current framework,” the Bench had said.

“We therefore deem it appropriate that prior to the implementation of the Committee’s Report, or the execution of the directions contained in Paragraph 50 of this Court’s judgment dated November 20, 2025, a fair, impartial, independent expert opinion must be obtained and considered, after associating all requisite stakeholders. Such a step is essential to resolve critical ambiguities and to provide definitive guidance on issues (relating to the definition of the ‘Aravalli Hills and Ranges’),” it had said.

As a matter of abundant caution, the Bench had directed that “until further orders, no permission shall be granted for mining, whether it is for new mining leases or renewal of old mining leases, in the ‘Aravalli Hills and Ranges’ as defined in the FSI (Forest Survey of India) Report dated 25.08.2010 without prior permission from this Court.”

It had issued notices to the Centre and governments of Haryana, Rajasthan, Gujarat and Delhi and urged Attorney General R Venkataramani, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, senior advocate and Amicus Curiae K Parmeswar and the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) to assist it on various issues concerning Aravalli Hills.

“While we have no scientific reasons justifying any ex-facie acceptance of the same, nor any cogent evidence or expert testimony to substantiate these individual contentions, nevertheless, it seems prima facie that both the Committee's Report and the judgment of this Court have omitted to expressly clarify certain critical issues,” it had said.

The top court had in November 2025 approved an elevation-linked definition for classifying landforms as part of the Aravalli range — spanning across Delhi, Haryana, Rajasthan and Gujarat — for the purpose of mining regulation.

However, following widespread apprehensions about ecological degradation due to unregulated mining in the Aravalli Hills, the Supreme Court took suo motu cognisance of issues concerning its definition last week and urgently took up the matter on Monday.

Environmental activists expressed serious concerns over the revised definition of the Aravalli hills, saying dilution of the definition could legitimise mining and construction activities in hitherto protected areas.

In view of the fact that various states adopted different definitions for Aravalli Hills/Ranges, the top court had constituted a committee which in October 2025 suggested several measures to protect and preserve the Aravalli Hills.

Any landform in Aravalli districts having an elevation of 100 metres or more from the local relief shall be termed as Aravalli Hills, the committee had said. It had defined the Aravalli Range as “two or more Aravalli Hills located within a proximity of 500m from each other, measured from the outermost point on the boundary of the lowest contour line on either side.”

In November 2025, a Bench of then CJI BR Gavai, Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice NV Anjaria accepted the committee’s recommendation. It had chosen not to impose a complete ban on mining activities in the Aravallis, noting that such blanket prohibition led to illegal mining activities.

It had directed the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MOEFCC) to prepare a Management Plan for Sustainable Mining (MPSM) for the Aravali hills and ranges.

“The MPSM will provide adequate data on the basis of geo-referenced ecological assessment and identify the areas which have wildlife and other high eco-sensitive areas, which are required to be conserved. The MPSM will also provide data as to how sustainable mining is to be conducted,” a Bench led by CJI BR Gavai said.

However, it had ordered that “In the meantime, the mining activities in the mines which are already in operation would be continued in strict compliance with the recommendations made by the Committee (SC-appointed Central Empowered Committee) in its Report.”

It had directed that upon the MPSM being finalised by the Ministry of Environment and Forests in consultation with the Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education (ICFRE), mining would be permitted as per the MPSM only in those areas wherein sustainable mining could be permitted.

The Bench, which also included Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice NV Anjaria, had said a complete ban on mining could lead to illegal mining activities being carried out, creation of land/mining mafias and criminalisation.

“…insofar as a ban on mining is concerned, we do not propose to impose any such ban on the present legal mining activities that are already being undertaken in the Aravalli Hills and Ranges,” it said.