Date: 29 December, 2025
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1127; SUO MOTO W.P.(CIVIL) No(s).10/2025
Corum: Hon’ble Mr. Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Augustine George Masih
BACKGROUND AND FACTS OF THE CASE
Aravalli hills are the mountain ranges covering larger parts of Gujarat, Rajasthan, Haryana, and Delhi. Known for its immense significance, it is one of the oldest fold mountains in India.
The importance of Aravallis can be understood considering its rich ecological biodiversity and minerals, preventing desertification and boosting economic activities.
However, the same has raised substantial environmental issues related to mining activities, illegal encroachments, and inconsistent definition of Aravalli hills.
The issue has been addressed in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, which resulted in the ongoing case of defining Aravalli hills and ranges.
This was because all the four states covering Aravallis were applying different definitions, and Haryana did not even have any statutory definition.
Unfair advantage had been taken to run economic activities due to these inconsistencies, requiring the need for a uniform definition to conserve and preserve the age-old Aravalli hills.
In accordance with the order dated 09.05.2024, the Court acknowledged the need for a precise definition, directing the constitution of a Central Empowered Committee (hereinafter referred to as the “CEC”) to formulate a uniform definition.
The present applications in the case challenged the order dated 20.11.2025, where the Court accepted the recommendations of the CEC including the uniform definition for Aravalli hills and ranges.
According to the CEC, any landform with an elevation of 100 metres or more from the local land relief, will be classified as Aravalli hills, and if two or more Aravalli hills located within 500 metres from each other will be considered as Aravalli ranges.
This led to huge public dissent and outcry by environmentalists, resulting in the present case.
ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE CASE
Whether the definition of the ‘Aravalli Hills and Ranges’, restricted exclusively to the 500 metre area between two or more Aravalli hills, creates a structural paradox wherein the geographical scope of protected territory is significantly narrowed.
Whether the restrictive demarcation has inversely broadened the scope of ‘non-Aravalli’ areas, thereby facilitating the continuation of unregulated mining and other disruptive activities in terrains that are ecologically contiguous but technically excluded by this definition?
Whether the Aravalli hills, characterized by an elevation of 100 metres and above, constitute a contiguous ecological formation even when the intervening distance exceeds the stipulated 500 metre threshold. Furthermore, whether regulated mining would be permissible in these gaps. If so, what precise spatial parameters or lateral width would be utilized to define the extent of the ‘Aravalli Range’ to ensure that ecological continuity is not compromised?
Whether the widely publicized criticism asserting that only 1,048 hills out of 12,081 in Rajasthan meet the 100 metre elevation threshold, thereby stripping the remaining lower ranges of environmental protection, is factually and scientifically accurate.
Whether there exist any supplementary issues or systemic vulnerabilities that may emerge during the course of these proceedings that necessitate this Court’s intervention.
APPLIED LEGAL PROVISIONS
Statutory Provisions
Wild Life Protection Act, 1972
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957
Wetlands (Conservation & Management) Rules, 2017
International Provisions
The United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, 1994
JUDGMENT
Constitution of a High-Powered Committee
The Hon’ble Supreme Court ordered the constitution of a High-Powered Expert Committee comprising domain experts for a systematic assessment of the Report submitted by the CEC, while examining the issues formulated in the case.
- Temporary Stay of the Impugned Order
The recommendations submitted by the CEC and the impugned order of the Court dated 20.11.2025, were kept in abeyance until the state of logical finality.
- Directions on Mining Leases
The Court further directed that no new mining leases or renewal thereof should be granted in the Aravalli hills and ranges without prior permission from the Court.
REASONING OF THE COURT
Owing to the profound concerns raised by environmentalists and huge public dissent against the acceptance of the uniform definition given to the Aravalli hills and ranges, the Court perceived lack of clarity and ambiguity in the previous directives issued in this behalf. Therefore, to further examine and investigate the issue to prevent irregulation and preserve age-old Aravallis, the Court found it appropriate to have a fair, impartial, independent expert opinion, allowing the implementation and execution of the CEC’s Report and the impugned directions, respectively.
To serve the broader public interests, allowing for complete justice and balancing ecological integrity, the previous impugned directions were held on a temporary stay, together with imposing strict compliance on mining leases.
CASE ANALYSIS
Positive Aspect
The temporary stay put by the Court on its previous directives was significant enough to prevent any irreversible ecological damage to the Aravallis.
Profound importance was given to environmental conservation and preservation, together with maintaining sustainable development in the developing country like India.
Remarkably, the order of the Court reflected perseverance and courtesy, considering such a sensitive environmental issue, while keeping intact the Constitutional values under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
Negative Aspect
That being said, the gravity of the issue has not been reduced. So far as the pre-existing mining activities have been persistently carried out, with howsoever strict compliance made by the Court, the environmental destruction it is causing remains a matter worth concerning.
Furthermore, illegal mining coupled with tree felling and land clearing raises alarming concerns regarding destructive natural calamities.
This being the fact, the State of Rajasthan is experiencing fresh destructive dust storms due to the process of removal of natural green barrier ‘Aravallis’.
Major developments require stringent Court guidelines for policy formulations concerning the preservation of age-old Aravallis, in order to realign with naturalisation and thereby protect the entire human civilisation from environmental vengeance.
THIS ARTICLE IS WRITTEN BY HIMANSHI SHARMA FROM RENAISSANCE LAW COLLEGE, DEVI AHILYA VISHWAVIDYALAYA, INDORE
REFERENCE :
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v Union of India (1997) 2 SCC 267 (SC).