Supreme Court stays own order limiting definition of Aravalli range amid row

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta welcomed the suo motu proceedings and said there were ‘several misconceptions’ surrounding the November judgment.

The Supreme Court on Monday stayed its November 20 judgment that had narrowed the definition of the Aravalli range to landforms rising at least 100 metres above the surrounding terrain, deciding to reopen and comprehensively re-examine the contentious question of what constitutes the Aravalli hills and how mining should be regulated in the region.

The top court decided to revisit the contentious issue of what constitutes the Aravallis and proposed forming an expert panel to comprehensively examine questions. (Arvind Yadav/HT Photo)

Hearing the matter suo motu, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and justices JK Maheshwari and AG Masih ordered that the November ruling be “put in abeyance” until the court undertakes a detailed examination of the issues with the assistance of domain experts. The bench also proposed the constitution of a high-powered expert committee to assess concerns relating to the height-based definition, ecological continuity, and permissible mining.

“We feel that a fair, impartial and independent opinion of the issues involved is required… some clarifications have to come,” CJI Kant observed during the hearing, which arose from proceedings initiated by the court on its own motion on December 27.

The interim stay is likely to also put on hold the mapping and delineation exercise initiated by the Union environment ministry and state governments to identify Aravalli areas strictly based on the now-stayed 100-metre elevation criterion, an exercise that was meant to form the foundation for future mining decisions in the region.

During Monday’s hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union government, welcomed the suo motu proceedings and said there were “several misconceptions” surrounding the November judgment. He pointed out that the earlier ruling had accepted the report of a court-appointed expert committee, and that it had envisaged a detailed mining plan to be prepared by experts, which would become operational only after Supreme Court approval. Mehta added that the government had also decided to conduct public consultations before finalising any mining plan.

The bench flagged a series of structural and ecological concerns arising from the elevation-based definition. These included whether restricting the Aravallis to landforms rising 100 metres or more effectively narrows the conservation area; whether it expands the scope of non-Aravalli land where regulated mining may be allowed; and how mining would be treated in “gaps” between two qualifying hill formations.

“For instance, if there are two areas of 100 metres and above, what about a gap of 700 metres between them?” asked the bench, underlining the risk of fragmenting a continuous ecological system.

The bench also raised concerns about how ecological continuity of the ancient mountain range would be preserved and whether a fresh and broader assessment would be required if a significant regulatory vacuum was discovered that could compromise the structural integrity of the Aravallis.

In view of these unresolved questions, the bench said it proposed forming a high-powered committee of domain experts to analyse the earlier expert report and assist the court in arriving at a more holistic framework. The bench asked all stakeholders to assist it in deciding the composition of the committee.

At the Solicitor General’s request, the court directed the Union government to first file its response before finalising the panel’s composition. Notices have also been issued to the Union government, the concerned Aravalli states, and senior advocate Parameshwar, who had earlier assisted the court as amicus curiae. Both the Solicitor General and the Attorney General will assist the bench in the proceedings.

“In the interim, we direct that the recommendations of the committee and the findings of the Supreme Court thereafter shall remain in abeyance,” the bench ordered, posting the matter for further hearing on January 21, 2026.

The suo motu proceedings were initiated on December 27 amid growing criticism of the November 20 judgment, which had accepted an expert committee’s recommendation to define the Aravallis purely on an elevation-based criterion. Under that definition, only landforms rising at least 100 metres above the local relief, measured from the lowest contour encircling the landform to its peak, qualify as the Aravalli hills.

Environmental experts and conservationists had warned that this approach excluded large tracts of smaller hills, ridges, and undulating terrain that form part of the continuous geological and ecological system of the Aravalli range, potentially opening them up to mining and development.

The controversy intensified after the Union environment ministry, on December 8, convened a meeting to initiate groundwork for delineating Aravalli areas “as per the definition accepted by the SC on November 20”, with state governments and the Survey of India tasked with mapping qualifying landforms. That exercise was intended to serve as the baseline for preparing a Management Plan for Sustainable Mining (MPSM) through the Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education (ICFRE).

With the November ruling now stayed, that delineation process is expected to be paused until the Supreme Court settles the definition question.

The Aravalli range is one of the world’s oldest fold mountains, which stretches over 700 kilometres from eastern Gujarat to Delhi through Rajasthan and Haryana, and plays a crucial ecological role. It acts as a natural barrier against desertification, aids groundwater recharge, and supports a diverse ecosystem of flora and fauna in an otherwise arid landscape.