The apex court had last month approved a definition suggested by the government’s expert panel that mining should be banned in the Aravalli hills, which have an elevation of 100 metres, and in hill clusters, slopes and hillocks located within 500 metres of each other, triggering massive criticism from civil society
The Supreme Court’s decision to keep in abeyance its November 20 judgment on the definition of the Aravalli hills is timely and prevents an ecological disaster in vast areas of northern India, including the National Capital Region of Delhi.
The apex court had last month approved a definition suggested by the government’s expert panel that mining should be banned in the Aravalli hills, which have an elevation of 100 metres, and in hill clusters, slopes and hillocks located within 500 metres of each other, triggering massive criticism from civil society.
The Aravallis are among the world’s oldest fold mountains, aged between 150 crore years and 250 crore years. They are much older than the supercontinents Pangea and Gondwana and are part of the global ecological heritage. They act as a physical barrier, stopping the Thar desert from expanding into populous regions such as Delhi, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh.
Given the important role that the Aravallis play in the northern climatic ecosystem, any responsible authority would be cautious about disturbing such a vital geological feature. The Central government’s committee failed to convincingly put forth arguments in support of resuming mining.
While it is heartening to see the common man and woman standing up for the protection of the country’s ancient mountain range, the infiltration of pro-mining interests at various levels of the government is worrisome. Had the people not raised their voice, the Supreme Court’s verdict would have caused irreparable damage to the country’s ecology. The government must therefore inquire into how such a lopsided report — which led to the Supreme Court’s verdict — was prepared at the Union environment level.
With the Supreme Court effecting two course corrections on the same day — keeping the Aravalli order in abeyance and cancelling the Delhi high court’s relief to Unnao rape convict Kuldeep Singh Sengar — it is appropriate for the judiciary to reflect internally on the processes that shape its judgements. The judiciary must remain beyond reproach.
