IN RE: DEFINITION OF ARAVALLI HILLS AND RANGES AND ANCILLARY ISSUES VS

Factual and Procedural Background

The Supreme Court of India, sitting as a Vacation Bench comprising the Chief Justice, Justice J.K. Maheshwari, and Justice Augustine George Masih, issued this order on 29 December 2025 in a suo motu writ petition titled “In Re: Definition of Aravalli Hills and Ranges and Ancillary Issues.”

The Court records that the Aravalli Hills and Range constitute a critical ecological and socio-economic backbone for North Western India, serving as the primary geographical barrier separating the arid North Western desert from the fertile Northern plains. The region hosts significant mineral deposits but has allegedly faced decades of unchecked urbanization, deforestation, and intensive resource extraction, placing severe strain on a fragile ecosystem.

Since 2002, the Court has been seized of issues concerning mining operations within the Aravalli region and the need to protect its ecology. A key difficulty identified was the absence of a uniform, central definition of “Aravalli Hills and Ranges,” leading the National Capital Territory of Delhi and the States of Rajasthan, Haryana, and Gujarat to adopt divergent criteria and definitions for demarcating the range.

This definitional inconsistency was again brought before the Court in the context of unchecked mining activities, underlining the exigent need for a uniform definition. By an order dated 09.05.2024, the Court acknowledged the necessity of a more precise definition of the Aravalli Hills and Ranges and directed the constitution of a Committee comprising senior officials and representatives from relevant central and state authorities and expert bodies. The Committee’s mandate included formulating a uniform definition.

The Committee submitted its report on 03.10.2025, recommending an “operational definition” of the Aravalli Hills and Ranges in the context of mining, based principally on (a) a 100-metre elevation-from-local-relief criterion for “Aravali Hills” in specified Aravalli districts, and (b) a 500-metre proximity threshold between such hills to constitute an “Aravali Range.” The recommended definition formed the primary basis for the Committee’s recommendation that no new mining leases be granted within the newly demarcated Aravalli Hills and Ranges.

After a comprehensive examination of the Committee’s report, the Court, by a judgment dated 20.11.2025, formally accepted the Committee’s findings, including the definition, and issued multiple directions. These included: acceptance of the definition; prohibition of mining in core/inviolate areas subject to limited exceptions identified in the Committee’s report; acceptance of recommendations for sustainable mining and measures to prevent illegal mining; a direction to the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) to prepare a Mine Plan for Sustainable Mining (MPSM) for the entire Aravalli range; and directions that no new mining leases be granted until the MPSM was finalized, with existing mining to continue only in strict compliance with the Committee’s recommendations.

Following the 20.11.2025 judgment, multiple Interlocutory Applications, Miscellaneous Applications, and petitions were filed challenging the Committee’s findings and the Court’s approval of them, and seeking clarification of certain directions. Simultaneously, there was significant public criticism from environmentalists, who expressed concern about potential misinterpretation and improper implementation of the new definition and directions. These challenges and criticisms alleged ambiguities and perceived regulatory gaps that could undermine the ecological integrity of the Aravalli region.

In response, the present order addresses the need to revisit and scrutinize the Committee’s report and the Court’s earlier acceptance of it, to clarify critical issues before implementation. It proposes the constitution of a High-Powered Expert Committee, issues notice to Union and State governments, and imposes interim directions including keeping the prior recommendations and directions in abeyance and restricting mining permissions.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the definition of “Aravalli Hills and Ranges,” particularly the criterion that an “Aravali Range” consists of two or more Aravalli Hills within a 500-metre proximity, creates a structural paradox by significantly narrowing the geographical scope of protected territory.
2. Whether this restrictive demarcation has the effect of broadening the extent of “non-Aravalli” areas, thereby facilitating continued or expanded unregulated mining and other disruptive activities in terrains that are ecologically contiguous to the Aravalli system but technically excluded by the adopted definition.
3. Whether Aravalli Hills with an elevation of 100 metres and above constitute a contiguous ecological formation even when the intervening distances between such hills exceed the 500-metre threshold; and, in such situations, whether regulated mining should be permissible in the intervening “gaps,” and what precise spatial parameters or lateral width should be used to define the extent of the “Aravalli Range” so that ecological continuity is not compromised.
4. Whether the publicly circulated criticism that only 1,048 out of 12,081 hills in Rajasthan meet the 100-metre elevation threshold—thereby potentially depriving the remaining lower ranges of environmental protection—is factually and scientifically accurate; and if such a criticism correctly identifies a significant regulatory lacuna, whether a comprehensive scientific and geological investigation is required to precisely measure hill and hillock elevations and reassess the criteria needed to protect the structural and ecological integrity of the entire range.
5. Whether there are any additional or systemic issues and vulnerabilities likely to emerge during the proceedings that warrant further intervention by the Court.
6. Which specific regions fall within the scope of the Committee’s recommended definition of Aravalli Hills and Ranges, and which territories would be excluded from protection under that definition.
7. Whether “sustainable mining” or “regulated mining” within the newly demarcated Aravalli areas, even under enhanced regulatory oversight, would cause adverse ecological consequences.
8. Whether the areas excluded from the new definition are at risk of eventual erasure or degradation, thereby undermining the overall ecological integrity of the Aravalli range.
9. What the short-term and long-term environmental impacts would be from implementing the recommended definition and associated directions, including a multi-temporal assessment of such impacts.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court begins by emphasizing the ecological and socio-economic significance of the Aravalli Hills and Ranges and recounts its long-standing engagement, since 2002, with issues surrounding mining and environmental protection in the region. It identifies as a foundational problem the previous lack of a uniform, central definition of the Aravallis, which had led each concerned State and the NCT of Delhi to adopt divergent criteria for demarcation.

To address this, the Court had earlier constituted a Committee via its order dated 09.05.2024 to formulate a uniform definition. The Committee’s report, submitted on 03.10.2025, proposed an operational definition for “Aravali Hills” and “Aravali Range” in the context of mining, based primarily on elevation (100 metres from local relief) and proximity (500 metres) criteria. This definition formed the basis of a recommendation that no new mining leases be granted within the newly defined Aravalli Hills and Ranges.

On 20.11.2025, the Court accepted the Committee’s recommendations, including the definition, and issued detailed directions: endorsing the definition, prohibiting mining in core/inviolate areas subject to stated exceptions, accepting norms for sustainable mining and anti-illegal mining steps, and requiring MoEF&CC to create a Mine Plan for Sustainable Mining (MPSM) for the entire Aravalli range. It further directed that no new mining leases be granted until the MPSM was finalized, and that existing mining operations continue only in strict accordance with the Committee’s recommended safeguards.

Subsequent to this judgment, a large number of interlocutory and miscellaneous applications and petitions were filed. They challenged the Committee’s findings and the Court’s approval, and sought clarification of particular directions. Parallelly, the Court notes a substantial outcry among environmentalists, who fear that the new definition and directions might be misinterpreted or improperly implemented. This criticism focuses on alleged ambiguity and lack of clarity in key terms and directions.

The Court expressly records that, as of now, it has neither “scientific reasons” to justify any immediate acceptance of these challenges, nor “cogent evidence or expert testimony” to substantiate the individual contentions. Nevertheless, on a prima facie assessment, the Court finds that both the Committee’s report and its own earlier judgment may have omitted to clearly address certain critical issues, creating potential for regulatory gaps that could undermine the ecological integrity of the Aravalli region.

In particular, the Court identifies several focal concerns requiring further expert evaluation:

• Whether defining an “Aravali Range” as consisting only of hills within a 500-metre proximity inadvertently narrows the scope of protected areas and creates a paradox where significant Aravalli or Aravalli-related territories fall outside protection.
• Whether this narrowed definition effectively converts substantial ecologically contiguous areas into “non-Aravalli” zones, potentially permitting unregulated mining and other harmful activities there.
• Whether hills above the 100-metre elevation threshold constitute a functionally contiguous ecological system even where distances between them exceed 500 metres, and how any intervening areas should be treated for purposes of mining regulation in order not to break ecological continuity.
• Whether the widely disseminated claim that only 1,048 out of 12,081 hills in Rajasthan meet the 100-metre criterion is scientifically accurate and, if so, whether this signals a significant regulatory gap that necessitates a comprehensive scientific and geological exercise to measure elevations and refine protection criteria.
• Whether broader systemic vulnerabilities or issues, not yet explicitly framed, may arise in the course of proceedings and require the Court’s intervention.

Finding these questions unresolved and significant, the Court concludes that the implementation of the Committee’s report and the 20.11.2025 directions should not proceed until an independent, fair, and scientifically informed assessment is undertaken. It therefore proposes constituting a High-Powered Expert Committee of domain experts to conduct an exhaustive review of the earlier Committee’s report. The High-Powered Committee is tasked with, among other things, the following analytical parameters:

• Providing a definitive enumeration of regions included within the recommended definition of Aravalli Hills and Ranges.
• Identifying the territories that would fall outside that definition and thus be excluded from protection.
• Assessing whether “sustainable” or “regulated” mining in the newly demarcated Aravalli areas, even under robust regulatory controls, would cause adverse ecological impacts.
• Evaluating whether areas excluded from the definition are at risk of degradation or eventual loss, thereby harming the ecological integrity of the broader Aravalli system.
• Conducting a multi-temporal evaluation of the short-term and long-term environmental impacts of adopting the recommended definition and associated regulatory directions.

On this basis, the Court holds that an immediate stay on the implementation of both the Committee’s recommendations and the earlier judgment’s directions is necessary “to subserve the ends of complete justice and in the broader public interest.” It reasons that maintaining the status quo will prevent “irreversible administrative or ecological actions” under a framework that may contain unresolved ambiguities.

Simultaneously, relying on its earlier order dated 09.05.2024, the Court reiterates and strengthens its protective stance by directing that, until further orders, no permission for mining—whether for new leases or renewal of old leases—shall be granted in the “Aravalli Hills and Ranges” as defined in the Forest Survey of India (FSI) Report dated 25.08.2010 without prior permission of the Court. It issues notice to the Union of India and the States of NCT of Delhi, Rajasthan, Haryana, and Gujarat, makes the matter returnable on 21.01.2026 before the Green Bench, and requests the participation of the Attorney General, Solicitor General, the Amicus Curiae, and the Central Empowered Committee to assist in resolving the identified issues.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The Court orders the following key directions:

• Constitution of a High-Powered Expert Committee: The Court proposes to constitute a High-Powered Expert Committee comprising domain experts to conduct a comprehensive and independent assessment of the earlier Committee’s report and to examine, in detail, specific questions and parameters relating to the definition and protection of the Aravalli Hills and Ranges.
• Notice and Listing: Notice is issued to the Union of India and the States of NCT of Delhi, Rajasthan, Haryana, and Gujarat, returnable on 21.01.2026. The matter is directed to be listed before the Green Bench on that date. The Attorney General for India, the Solicitor General of India, and the Amicus Curiae (Mr. K. Parameshwar), along with the Central Empowered Committee, are requested to assist the Court.
• Stay of the Committee’s Recommendations and Prior Judgment: The Court directs that the recommendations submitted by the Committee constituted under the 09.05.2024 order, together with the findings and directions set out in the judgment dated 20.11.2025 (including the acceptance of the new definition and associated mining regime), are to be kept in abeyance. This stay will remain in force until the present proceedings reach “logical finality.”
• Interim Mining Ban Without Court Permission: As a matter of “abundant caution,” the Court reiterates and clarifies that, until further orders, no permission will be granted for mining—whether for new leases or for renewal of existing leases—in the “Aravalli Hills and Ranges” as defined in the FSI Report dated 25.08.2010, except with prior permission from the Court.
• Final Operative Direction: The order concludes with the directive: “Ordered accordingly.”

Implications: The direct effects of this order on the parties and stakeholders are:

• Implementation of the newly adopted operational definition of “Aravalli Hills and Ranges,” and the associated framework for sustainable mining and prohibitions set out in the 20.11.2025 judgment, is temporarily halted. No administrative or regulatory action may proceed under that framework until the Court concludes the present proceedings.
• The more conservative protective baseline, namely the “Aravalli Hills and Ranges” as defined in the FSI Report dated 25.08.2010, now governs interim regulation. Within that ambit, no mining—new or by renewal—may be allowed without explicit prior permission of the Supreme Court.
• Union and State authorities, as well as mining and environmental regulators, must maintain status quo in terms of not issuing new leases or renewals in the specified areas until further orders, thereby preventing potentially irreversible ecological or regulatory consequences based on a disputed definitional framework.
• The order sets the stage for an expert-driven re-examination of the definition and regulatory scheme for the Aravalli region, ensuring that future directions will be informed by a more exhaustive scientific and ecological analysis. The opinion does not state that any new binding legal precedent is being established beyond the immediate regulatory and supervisory directions for this case.