The Supreme Court on Monday stayed its previous judgment related to the mining activities in the Aravalli Hills, observing that further clarification was required in respect of the definitions governing the mountainous range.
The Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Augustine George Masih observed that the recommendations forming the basis of the earlier decision had emanated from a committee largely consisting of administrative officials. A more specialised body of experts, with demonstrable environmental and ecological expertise, ought to evaluate the likely consequences of the definitional criteria on the integrity of the Aravalli ecosystem.
The Apex Court stayed its earlier judgment on the Aravallis and placed the recommendations of the expert committee, as well as the findings flowing from them, in abeyance. The matter is now scheduled for further consideration on January 21, 2026.
The proceedings arise from a suo motu petition titled In Re: Definition of Aravalli Hills and Ranges and Related Issues, initiated in the backdrop of widespread public concern and environmental protests.
The Aravalli Range, one of the most ancient geological formations in the world, extends across Delhi, Haryana, Rajasthan, and Gujarat, and performs a critical ecological function despite its relatively subdued elevation. The range acts as a natural barrier against desertification, facilitates groundwater recharge, moderates air pollution, and sustains biodiversity across north-western India. Judicial scrutiny of the region has intensified over the years in light of extensive mining, encroachments, and regulatory lapses.
In May 2024, while dealing with matters concerning illegal mining in the Aravalli region, the Supreme Court noted that the absence of a uniform and scientifically grounded definition of the “Aravalli Hills” had resulted in inconsistent regulatory approaches across States. Invoking its constitutional mandate under Articles 32 and 142, the Court constituted a committee to recommend objective criteria for identifying and protecting the range.
The committee subsequently proposed that any landform within notified Aravalli districts rising 100 metres or more above the local relief be classified as an Aravalli Hill. It further recommended that an Aravalli Range be defined as a cluster of two or more such hills situated within a radial distance of 500 metres, measured from the outer boundary of the lowest contour line.
In a judgment dated November 20, a Bench comprising then Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justices K. Vinod Chandran and N.V. Anjaria accepted these recommendations. The Court endorsed the proposed definitions and imposed restrictions on mining activities in core or inviolate areas, while expressly declining to impose a blanket ban on mining across the Aravalli region. The Bench reasoned that absolute prohibitions often incentivise illegal mining and contribute to criminalisation rather than environmental protection.
However, the acceptance of an elevation-centric definition triggered sustained opposition from environmental experts, researchers, and civil society organisations. Critics contended that the Aravallis constitute a deeply eroded and interconnected ecological system, where environmental value is not confined to sharply elevated landforms. They warned that the reliance on height as the determinative criterion could exclude extensive low-lying hills, scrub forests, wildlife corridors, and catchment areas that are integral to the range’s ecological continuity.
It was further contended that the definitional framework could place substantial portions of the Aravalli landscape—particularly in Haryana and Rajasthan—outside the protective ambit of environmental regulation, thereby facilitating mining, infrastructure expansion, and real estate development in ecologically sensitive zones.
The Supreme Court’s present order reflects judicial cognisance of these apprehensions. The Bench underscored the need to evaluate the definitional criteria through the lens of environmental impact assessment, precautionary principle, and sustainable development—doctrines that have consistently informed the Court’s environmental jurisprudence since decisions such as Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India, M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, and T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India.
The Court’s observations also bring into focus a broader institutional issue: the reliance on expert committees in complex environmental adjudication. While such bodies assist courts in navigating scientific and technical domains, the present Bench noted that the composition of such committees assumes critical importance, particularly where their recommendations carry far-reaching regulatory and ecological consequences.
By directing that the environmental impact of the proposed definitions be reassessed by an appropriately constituted expert body, the Court signalled that administrative convenience cannot override ecological complexity or constitutional guarantees under Article 21, which encompasses the right to a clean and healthy environment.
The interim stay effectively pauses the regulatory framework that would have governed mining and land-use decisions across the Aravalli region. The Court is now expected to examine whether the definitional exercise adequately captures the ecological realities of the range, or whether a more holistic, ecosystem-based approach is warranted.
The outcome of the proceedings is likely to have implications beyond the Aravallis, shaping how ecologically sensitive landscapes are identified, defined, and protected in India amid competing developmental imperatives. The case thus represents a critical moment in the continuing evolution of India’s environmental governance framework, testing the balance between technocratic regulation, judicial oversight, and ecological preservation.
The post Supreme Court stays earlier verdict on mining in Aravalli Hills appeared first on India Legal.