Protecting the Aravallis: Analysing the Judgment

Abstract

The Aravallis form an important aspect of India’s environment, significantly impacting the climate of the North, which was threatened by the 20th November 2025 judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. This article aims to understand the judgment in its entirety while also acknowledging India’s worldwide commitments to environmental protection and citizens’ rights. It begins with an overview of the great stretch of the Aravallis and the judgment of the court, examining the various occasions on which the Executive and Judiciary collaborated through committees, and finally reaching the most recent stance of the Hon’ble Court. The article aims to understand both sides of the argument surrounding the judgment, taking into account the public anger, citizens’ rights, and environmental jurisprudence, and ending with a critical appraisal.

Keywords: Article 21, CEC Report, Aravallis, Definition, Forest Survey of India Report, environmental jurisprudence

Introduction

The Great Aravalli Mountain Ranges are nothing short of a boon for North India. They are geological formations that protect North and North-Western India from becoming part of the Thar Desert by preventing sand from crossing into the Indo-Gangetic plains. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that uncontrolled mining in the Aravallis is a “great threat to the ecology of the nation.” The ranges stretch to a length of 800 km across four Indian states: Rajasthan, Haryana, Gujarat, and the Union Territory of Delhi. They are rich in biodiversity and provide habitat to over 300 native plant species and 120 bird species.

The primary issue in this context has been the very definition of the Aravalli Hills and Aravalli Ranges. The judgment passed by the Supreme Court on 20th November 2025 carries far-reaching implications. It approves the Union Government’s decision to narrow the definition of which hills may be called Aravalli, thereby causing widespread public outrage. The judgment is questionable in that it implicitly permits mining activities to be conducted in previously protected areas, leading to a loss of protection for the mountain ranges. The objective of this article is to identify how this judgment could have serious repercussions and whether there could have been alternative paths the court could have chosen.

Flow of the Case

Background: The Godavarman Case and Environmental Guardianship
To understand the background of this judgment, the case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (1997)[1] must be examined. In that case, the court left the role of interpreter and became a guardian of the environment, with some arguing that it oversteps its constitutional authority. The court issued directions to check the strict implementation of forest laws and the subsequent sustainable usage of forest resources. This is extremely relevant to the Aravallis judgment, as the court attempted to affirm the Union Government’s directions for the definition of the Aravallis.

The judgment discusses in detail the different commitments of the Government towards the prevention of desertification, one of them being the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, approved by India on 17th December 1996. It mentions certain important articles of the said Convention, namely Article 4 and Article 5. Article 4 requires states to adopt an integrated approach to address the different aspects of desertification, covering socio-economic, biological, and other dimensions. Article 5 defines India as a signatory and formally requires member states to draft domestic laws to enable the goals of the Convention against desertification. The Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change’s “Aravalli Green Wall Project” initiative in this direction is noteworthy, as it takes a step towards conservation of the Aravallis. The court emphasised the precautionary principle as a guiding light to streamline and systematise efforts towards conservation.

The CEC Report and Competing Definitions
In the T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad proceedings before the Hon’ble Court, both the Amicus Curiae and the Senior Counsel for the State of Rajasthan raised important issues. The Counsel for the State of Rajasthan raised doubts regarding the criteria for classification between the Aravalli Hills and Ranges. The Amicus suggested to the court that if the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) examined the issues, it would prove helpful to the court in issuing further directions. The court accordingly, through its judgment, instructed the CEC to examine the issues relating to the definition of the Aravalli Hills and Ranges. The Committee submitted its report on 7th March 2024.

The Committee issued certain recommendations, the important ones being as follows. First, that the mapping of the Hill Range must be done within six months by the Forest Survey of India (FSI), with funds to be drawn from the Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority. Second, an Environmental Impact Assessment study of all mining-affected Aravalli Hills within the state of Rajasthan should be undertaken. Third, a detailed enumerated list of areas within the Hill Ranges where mining activity will be strictly prohibited should be established. These included areas such as Eco-Sensitive Zones (ESZs), Tiger Reserves, Wetland Protected Areas, and DARK Zones where groundwater depletion is excessive and unsustainable. Fourth, that all mining in forest areas should be suspended and may only be allowed after the completion of the Environmental Impact Assessment study and after permission from the court. Fifth, mines that have reached the groundwater level should be closed to prevent further deterioration in terms of depletion of groundwater. Sixth, a regular biennial evaluation of the cumulative impacts of mining activities in the Aravallis should be conducted to ensure that the ecosystem remains intact. Seventh, and importantly, the recommendations mention the creation of a District Task Force comprising Revenue, Mining, and Police Departments to control illegal mining, suggesting that adequate safeguards were considered before the committee.

The court, in its 9th May 2024 order, found that the issue of mining needed to be addressed by the different states through which the Aravalli Ranges stretch, namely the NCT of Delhi, Gujarat, Rajasthan, and Haryana. This would help in taking a uniform stance against illegal mining. The court, after taking cognisance of the above-mentioned report, ordered that a committee be formed to decide on a uniform definition of the Hills and Ranges of the Aravallis. It ordered the inclusion of various representatives of the Geological Survey of India, the Forest Survey of India, the Secretary of the Ministry of Environment, and the Secretary of the Department of Forests of the Governments of NCT Delhi, Gujarat, Rajasthan, and Haryana to ensure representation and good decision-making.

The definition of the Aravallis as per the Forest Survey of India Report dated 19th August 2010 is as follows: “(i) slope greater than 3 degrees; (ii) foothill buffer of 100 metres; (iii) inter-hill distance or valley width of 500 metres; and (iv) the area enclosed by the above-defined hills from all sides.” This is an expansive definition covering the vast territory these hills and ranges encompass. It stands in direct contrast to the definition adopted in the CEC Report dated 3rd October 2025, which defined any landform having an elevation of 100 metres or more from the local relief as the Aravalli Hills, without sufficient justification for that threshold. This narrower definition suggests that hills below the 100-metre mark may be opened to mining and hazardous activities, thereby endangering the ecosystem of the Aravallis.

This very concern was raised by the learned Amicus Curiae, who submitted that there was no reason for the court to prefer the committee definition over the Forest Survey of India definition. In response, the learned Additional Solicitor General of India, Ms. Bhati, submitted that acceptance of the committee definition would lead to a beneficial outcome as a larger area of land would be included within the Aravalli Hills and Ranges. She further stated that the committee had made certain recommendations to allow only sustainable mining. Clause 7.3.1 of the committee report also recommended the prohibition of mining in core areas, except in cases of critical minerals. Efforts were made to ensure that sustainable mining measures are promoted.

The court ordered the creation of a Management Plan for Sustainable Mining (MPSM), drawing references to the plans used in Sarandha and Chaibasa, Jharkhand, to promote sustainable mining. This plan would encompass various aspects, including identifying sensitive zones, conservation-demanding areas, understanding cumulative environmental impacts, and post-mining rehabilitation measures. While considering this, the 2002 Committee Report on the Aravallis is also relevant. It had explicitly mentioned the 100-metre hill definition propounded by the committee constituted by the Supreme Court in 2024, a definition which had been followed by the State of Rajasthan since 2006 based on Richard Murphy’s landform classification. This context suggests that the public uproar over this issue is, in part, attributable to the matter gaining national attention.

Effects of Illegal Mining

Due to incessant mining in the South-Western Aravallis, the land has undergone depletion to a drastic level, leading to hill disappearance and flattening. As per the Supreme Court’s 2018 Report, 31 out of 218 hills in Rajasthan had been flattened due to mining. Mining operations continue even after a hill is completely dug out. Miners continue to excavate into the ground, reaching the roots of the mountains until the water table is reached. After this, the land is abandoned, leading to depletion of the water table. Mining is technically permitted only up to 2 metres above the water table, but these norms are routinely flouted. About 28,000 illegal mining cases were recorded in Rajasthan, of which about 16,000 were registered in Aravalli districts alone.

In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (2009),[2] the Supreme Court imposed a blanket mining restriction in the Aravalli Hills in the Mewat, Gurugram, and Faridabad districts of Haryana, reflecting a protectionist stance against mining and invoking the precautionary principle. However, these measures have clearly proved insufficient in the long run.

Further Steps of the Court

The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in its 29th December 2025 judgment, stayed the application of its previous order dated 20th November 2025. This was in light of the significant public uproar following the court’s earlier approval of the CEC recommendations, triggered by a substantial number of Interlocutory Applications (IAs) and Miscellaneous Applications (MAs) challenging the judgment. The December 2025 judgment also notes that environmentalists had expressed concern regarding the misinterpretation of clauses of the 20th November judgment.

The court issued certain directions through its judgment that are important to note. First, it ordered the formation of a High-Powered Expert Committee to undertake a proper assessment of the report submitted by the earlier committee, based on pertinent questions including: a list of territories that will be excluded from protection; the scope of protection under the adopted definition; an analysis of short- and long-term environmental impacts; and various other matters concerning protection and rejuvenation of the ranges. The court further directed that no new mining leases be granted and no old leases be renewed until the final decision of the court, following receipt of the expert committee report.

This stance reflects the court’s commitment to self-review as affirmed by Article 137[3] of the Constitution, which allows the court to review its own judgments to correct grave miscarriages of justice. Furthermore, Article 48A[4] of the Constitution, part of the Directive Principles of State Policy as inserted by the 42nd Amendment Act 1976, affirms that the state should endeavour to protect and improve the environment. The court’s stance may be directly correlated to this article, as an effort to recognise and protect the Aravallis, which provide crucial environmental support for the country.

Article 51A(g)[5] of the Constitution, part of the Fundamental Duties, asks every citizen to protect and improve the natural environment of the country, including forests, lakes, and other natural resources. This provision is citizen-oriented, and the public protests over the 20th November 2025 Aravalli verdict draw legitimacy from it, as the verdict was perceived to endanger the livelihoods and living conditions of those dependent on the ecosystem. Both these articles gain relevance through Article 21,[6] which guarantees the Right to Life and Personal Liberty. Through an expansive reading driven by Judicial Activism, the Right to a Healthy Environment has been affirmed as a component of Article 21 in Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State (1988),[7] also known as the Dehradun Quarrying Case. This right protects both citizens’ access to a healthy environment and the lives of people inhabiting and depending on the hills. The court has also begun seeking the names of environmentalists and experts for the constitution of the High-Powered Committee, ensuring that the new report is inclusive and credible.

Critical Appraisal

While the Supreme Court has considered the viewpoints of the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) Report dated 3rd October 2025, it should have carefully examined the recommendations of the Forest Survey of India Report dated 19th August 2010, which contains an expansive definition of the Hills and Ranges based on degree classification rather than a singular classification by height. The temporary stoppage of new mining leases mentioned in operative clause (v) of the judgment is insufficient. It has been publicly noted by Hon’ble Former Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai[8] that new mining leases will not be given until the MPSM is finalised; however, this does not adequately address the concerns arising from the court’s approval of the CEC report recommendations.

The latest judicial attempt at self-review represents a commendable step in environmental jurisprudence. The Precautionary Principle, affirmed in Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996),[9] establishes that a lack of scientific certainty should not serve as a reason to weaken environmental protection. This principle should further guide the court in its next judgment.

While this revisionary stance of the court is appreciable, the court should also have considered the impacts of illegal mining on people living within its direct sphere of impact and established more adequate safeguards for them under Article 21, along the lines of the protective directions issued in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan for the prevention of sexual harassment at the workplace. More detailed directions for enforcement could also have received greater attention. Ultimately, the court could have understood this case not only through the lens of environmental jurisprudence but also as a matter of the fundamental rights of every citizen.

References

[1] T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Others, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202 of 1995 (Supreme Court of India).
[2] M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Ors, (2009) 17 SCC 683.
[3] INDIA CONST. art. 137.
[4] INDIA CONST. art. 48A (inserted by the Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976).
[5] INDIA CONST. art. 51A(g) (inserted by the Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976).
[6] INDIA CONST. art. 21.
[7] Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P., 1985 AIR 652 (Supreme Court of India).
[8] Republic World, ‘Arnab’s Epic Face-Off With Former CJI BR Gavai On The Aravalli Verdict | Super Exclusive’ (YouTube, 24 December 2025) accessed 12 January 2026.
[9] Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India & Ors, (1996) 5 SCC 647.

• Arushi, ‘Supreme Court stays Aravalli order; directs constitution of High-Powered Committee to clarify definition of Aravalli Hills and Ranges and its ecological impact’ (SCC Online, 29 December 2025) accessed 24 January 2026.
• Press Information Bureau, ‘Aravalli Hills: Protecting Ecology and Ensuring Sustainable Development’ (PIB Government of India, 21 December 2025) accessed 24 January 2026.
• Drishti IAS, ‘Protection of Aravalli Hills’ (Drishti IAS, 22 December 2025) accessed 24 January 2026.
• Drishti IAS, ‘Aravallis: A Mountain Lost’ (Drishti IAS, 25 May 2019) accessed 24 January 2026.
• Drishti IAS, ‘Mining in Aravalli Range’ (Drishti IAS, 17 May 2024) accessed 24 January 2026.
• Neeraj Kumar, ‘Vanishing Mountains: A Study of Illegal Mining in the Aravallis of South-Western Districts of Haryana and its Impact on Physical Environment and Life’ (2022) Indian Journal of Applied Research (August 2022) accessed 24 January 2026.
• Parmod Kumar, ‘Aravalli definition: SC to constitute expert committee; seeks names of environmentalists, forest experts’ (The Statesman, 21 January 2026) accessed 24 January 2026.
• Dr Rafique Khan, ‘The Aravalli Verdict and India’s Green Constitutionalism: A Watershed Moment in Ecological Jurisprudence’ (Live Law, 19 January 2026) accessed 24 January 2026.
• Devyanshi Biyani, ‘Over 77% of Rajasthan’s Illegal Mining FIRs Filed in Aravalli Districts’ (The Hindu, 17 January 2026) accessed 24 January 2026.
• M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Ors, IA Nos 75317/2025 in WP (Civil) No 4677/1985 (Supreme Court of India, 29 December 2025) accessed 24 January 2026.
• Disha Chaudhari, ‘Review Petitions in the Supreme Court’ (Supreme Court Observer, 19 October 2018) accessed 24 January 2026.
• Aaditya Khatwani, ‘Opposition launches 700 km march to oppose SC ruling on range definition’ (Hindustan Times, 23 January 2026) accessed 24 January 2026.
• Press Information Bureau, ‘Environmental Protection under Constitutional Framework of India’ (Press Information Bureau, Government of India, 4 June 2014) accessed 22 January 2026.
• Jacob Koshy, ‘How is the Aravalli Range to be Protected, Explained’ (The Hindu, 21 December 2025) accessed 24 January 2026.
• Supreme Court of India, Issues Relating to the Aravalli Hills and Ranges, 2025 INSC 1338 | 2025 SCO.LR 11(4)[19] accessed 24 January 2026.