SC Stays Its Earlier Order on Aravalli Definition

NEW DELHI: Acting on a suo motu matter, the Supreme Court on Monday kept in abeyance its November 20 directions accepting a uniform definition of the Aravalli hills and ranges, citing the need to resolve “critical ambiguities”, including whether the 100-metre elevation and 500-metre gap criteria could strip large portions of the range of environmental protection.

A three-judge vacation bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant noted widespread concern over the issue and observed that, prima facie, both the committee’s report and the court’s earlier verdict had failed to clearly address key issues, making a deeper examination imperative to prevent regulatory gaps that could undermine the ecological integrity of the Aravalli region.

The apex court proposed the constitution of a high-powered expert panel and framed specific questions to clear critical ambiguities and provide definitive guidance on the issues.

The Supreme Court directed that, until further orders, no permission for mining shall be granted in the “Aravalli Hills and Ranges”, as defined in the Forest Survey of India report dated August 25, 2010, without its prior approval. The court also issued notices to the Centre and the governments of Delhi, Rajasthan, Haryana and Gujarat, and posted the matter for hearing on January 21.

The Supreme Court noted that environmentalists had raised strong objections, voicing serious concerns that the newly adopted definition and the court’s directions could be misinterpreted or improperly implemented.

The bench, also comprising Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Augustine George Masih, observed that the public dissent and criticism appeared to arise from ambiguities and lack of clarity in certain terms and directions issued by the court.

In its order passed in the suo motu matter titled “In Re: Definition of Aravalli Hills and Ranges and Ancillary Issues”, the Supreme Court said there was a pressing need for further examination and clarification to prevent regulatory gaps that could undermine the ecological integrity of the Aravalli region.

On November 20, the Supreme Court accepted a uniform definition of the Aravalli hills and ranges and barred the grant of fresh mining leases in areas spanning Delhi, Haryana, Rajasthan and Gujarat until an expert report was submitted. The court had adopted the recommendations of a committee of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change to safeguard the world’s oldest mountain system.

The committee had recommended defining an “Aravalli Hill” as any landform in designated Aravalli districts rising 100 metres or more above the local relief, and an “Aravalli Range” as a cluster of two or more such hills located within 500 metres of one another.

On Monday, the Supreme Court noted that its November 20 verdict had prompted several applications and petitions challenging the committee’s findings and the court’s subsequent approval, while also seeking clarification on certain directions.

The court observed that although there was no scientific basis or expert evidence to justify an outright acceptance of the individual claims, it appeared prima facie that both the committee’s report and the court’s judgment had failed to clearly address certain critical issues.

The Supreme Court said that before implementing the committee’s report or enforcing its November 20 directions, a fair, impartial and independent expert opinion must be obtained and considered, with the involvement of all relevant stakeholders.

The court said such a step was essential to clear critical ambiguities and provide definitive guidance, including on whether limiting the definition of the “Aravalli Hills and Ranges” to areas within a 500-metre distance between two or more hills creates a structural paradox by significantly narrowing the extent of protected territory.

The Supreme Court said it must therefore be examined whether this restrictive demarcation has, in effect, expanded the scope of “non-Aravalli” areas, thereby enabling unregulated mining and other disruptive activities in ecologically contiguous regions that are technically excluded by the definition.

The court said it must be examined whether the Aravalli Hills, defined by elevations of 100 metres and above, form a contiguous ecological system even when the distance between them exceeds the stipulated 500-metre threshold.

The apex court further said it must be examined whether the widely publicised claim that only 1,048 of the 12,081 hills in Rajasthan meet the 100-metre elevation threshold, thereby leaving the remaining lower ranges without environmental protection, is factually and scientifically accurate.

The court said that if this assessment indeed reveals a significant regulatory gap, it must be considered whether a comprehensive scientific and geological investigation is required.

The Supreme Court proposed constituting a high-powered expert panel to carry out a comprehensive assessment of the committee’s report.

The court said the proposed study would involve an exhaustive and holistic examination of the issues framed, including a definitive identification of the specific regions that fall within the scope of the recommended definition.

The court said that, in the interim and in the interests of complete justice and public welfare, it was necessary to keep in abeyance the committee’s recommendations as well as the findings and directions issued in its judgment dated November 20, 2025.

The Supreme Court said the stay would remain in force until the proceedings reach their logical conclusion, ensuring that no irreversible administrative or ecological actions are taken under the existing framework.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, said the court’s acceptance of the MoEFCC committee’s recommendations had given rise to “misconceptions and misrepresentations” about both the court and the government in the public domain.

Union environment minister Bhupender Yadav on Monday welcomed the Supreme Court's decision to stay its order accepting a uniform definition of the Aravalli hills and ranges, and said the government stands committed to its protection and restoration.

Meanwhile, Union environment minister Bhupender Yadav welcomed the top court order and said the government stands committed to protection and restoration of the Aravallis.

Yadav posted on X: "I welcome the Supreme Court directions introducing a stay on its order concerning the Aravalli range, and the formation of a new committee to study issues. We stand committed to extending all assistance sought from MOEFCC in the protection and restoration of the Aravalli range."

He added, "As things stand, a complete ban on mining stays with regard to new mining leases or renewal of old mining leases."