THE DEFINITION DEBACLE: JUDICIAL UNCERTAINTY IN THE ARAVALLIS

Destruction in the Aravalli hills: Courtesy State of The Haryana Aravallis: Citizens' Report Part 1

Aravallis: The Green Lungs of North Western India

The Aravallis serve as the indispensable ecological and socioeconomic backbone of North Western India, playing a critical role in enhancing precipitation, preventing drought and maintaining humidity across Delhi, Haryana, Gujarat, and Rajasthan. Recently, by a judgment dated 20th November 2025, the Supreme Court revised the definition of Aravalli Hills and Ranges, causing many low-level hills to fall within the acceptable mining criteria. This resulted in inclusion of more regions, making them susceptible to extraction, furthering environmental degradation. This article argues that the Courts must not ignore settled principles of environmental jurisprudence, refraining from adopting a narrow, technical definition of the Aravallis and revert to the landscape-protective regime through the law. Further it advocates that the Court must not engage in scientific reductionism, that is, oversimplifying a complex ecological entity, rather they should be more ecologically sensitive while determining the policies and regulatory framework in the Aravallis.

Tracing the Protectionist Jurisprudence surrounding the Aravallis

The Executive, in furtherance of its duty to protect the natural resources of India, has historically undertaken various measures for the conservation of the Aravallis. The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Changes issued two foundational notifications under the Environment Protection Rules, 1986 and the Environment Protection Act,1986. Under the first notification in 1992, the Central Government restricted activities in specific areas of the Aravalli Range that were causing significant environmental degradation. This measure banned all new mining operations, including renewal of old mining leases, and established a strict procedure for obtaining prior permission before undertaking any mining activity. Furthermore, it empowered authorities to improve environmental quality and abate pollution. The second notification in 1999 delegated these powers to the state governments of Delhi, Haryana, Gujarat, and Rajasthan, while mandating a compulsory Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) before the commencement of any mining operations.

The Supreme Court of India has also adjudicated upon mining in the Aravallis for decades, recognizing the necessity of protecting an ecology threatened by rapid urbanization, desertification, and indiscriminate mining. The issue of definitional inconsistency across the four states  of Delhi, Haryana, Gujarat and Rajasthan and has been a recurrent hurdle, and the position of the Court has evolved significantly over time. In 2002, the Supreme Court issued a series of orders to halt all mining activities and groundwater pumping in the Haryana Aravallis. Following a report from the Central Empowered Committee, this prohibition was extended to the entire range from Dholpur to Rajasthan. The Court emphasized that the principle of sustainable development necessitated an EIA before any mining could be permitted. While the Court initially sought to balance commercial interests with conservation, the persistent deterioration of the landscape led to the landmark 2004 decision in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India. Here, the Court noted that agencies were failing to obtain clearances or prepare management plans despite clear legal requirements. This judgment opened a gateway for the Court to impose a complete ban in the future if the ecological situation reached an emergent state.

The judicial philosophy shifted toward a deeper constitutional grounding in 2005. In T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, the Court accepted the applicability of the Public Trust Doctrine. It observed that the State acts as a trustee of natural resources meant for public enjoyment and is under a legal duty to protect them. This reinforced the idea that environmental protection was not merely a policy choice but a fiduciary obligation of the State. However, the most drastic shift occurred in 2009 in the case of M.C. Mehta vs. UOI and Ors.  with T.N Godavarman Thirmulpad v.s.UOI and Ors. The Court discovered that mining operations were undertaken in a disproportionate scale in the Aravalli Hill mainly and thus suspended the mining operations in this area. An inspection of twenty-six mines yielded disheartening statistical data, revealing widespread non-compliance with statutory rules and regulations and necessitating an immediate overhaul of safety protocols. Disheartening statistical data showed widespread non-compliance of statutory rules and regulations applicable to mines upon inspection of twenty-six mines. This period represented the peak of the Court's protectionist stance, where the precautionary principle was used to prioritize ecological integrity over industrial output.

Destruction of Aravallis by mining in Gujarat's Ambaghanta. Photo: People For Aravallis.

Shocking Shift from Protection to Technicality 

This history of rigorous protection makes the recent judgment in In Re: Issue Relating to Definition of Aravali Hills and Ranges, dated 20 November 2025, particularly startling. While the Bench began by acknowledging the Aravallis as a shield against desertification, its final directions moved away from this ecological sensitivity. The Court attempted to resolve illegal mining by creating a uniform definition, yet the definition adopted is purely based on an elevation level. By defining a hill as a landform with an elevation of 100 meters or more from the local relief, the Court dismissed the apprehension of the Amicus Curiae. The Amicus Curiae had argued that the acceptance of such a definition would result in the Aravali Hills and Ranges to lose their continuity and integrity and totally endanger the environment and ecology of the mountains. Such a technical threshold risks the loss of low-lying ridges that are ecologically vital but fail to meet the arbitrary height requirement.

Furthermore, the Court directed that a study similar to the one conducted by the Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education (ICFRE) for the Saranda forest in Jharkhand to also be undertaken for the Aravalli Hills and Ranges. Drawing from this exercise, the Court held that a Management Plan for Sustainable Mining (MPSM) must be prepared for each district in the Aravallis before further mining activities are permitted. The Court’s reasoning was based on the fact that since an MPSM had been successfully implemented for an ecologically sensitive area like Saranda, a similar framework should be applied to protect the continuity and integrity of the Aravallis. However, this reliance lacks a sound logical basis. The judgment offers no clear rationale for this linkage or why a model designed for the dense forests of Jharkhand is an appropriate template for the rocky terrain of North India. By observing the success of the Saranda exercise and assuming its suitability for the Aravallis, the Court engaged in a mechanical transplantation of policy. This fails to account for the unique sensitivities of the Aravalli range, effectively treating two vastly different ecosystems as interchangeable.

Perhaps, the most disappointing observation was the Court's refusal to ban current legal mining on the grounds that it might lead to the creation of mining mafias. This reasoning is fundamentally flawed. To refrain from imposing a necessary environmental protection solely out of fear of potential lawlessness is a dangerous concession. The law cannot function on the assumption of its own failure, and judicial protections should not be compromised simply because the State may struggle with enforcement. By prioritizing the fear of criminal activity over ecological necessity, the Court allowed the threat of lawlessness to dictate the scope of environmental rights. The 2025 judgment sparked immediate outcry, as it was perceived as a reversal of decades of settled environmental jurisprudence. Fortunately, the Supreme Court has since issued a stay order in these directions. Recognizing that the 2025 judgment omitted critical issues and triggered significant public concern, the Court has now ordered that an independent expert opinion be obtained. It has also reinstated the requirement that no new or renewal leases be granted without prior judicial permission. While this stay is welcome, it highlights a period of judicial uncertainty. The Court has changed its protectionist stance. Instead of mechanically transplanting policies, it is now returning to reliance on scientific opinions. The Court has moved from a protectionist stance to a period of mechanical policy transplantation and is only now returning to a reliance on scientific opinion. The survival of the green lungs of North India now depends on whether the Court chooses to return to the rigors of the Public Trust Doctrine or continues to rely on reductionist technical definitions. 

Fundamental Rights and the Role of Citizens

Citizens have also played a crucial role in protesting against the destruction of the Aravallis. The People for Aravallis collective in The State of the Haryana Aravallis: Citizen’s Report - Part 1, submitted a report in May 2025 which provides a disheartening look at the real-time consequences of mining activity. It reveals that licensed mining operations have already devastated significant portions of the billion-year-old ecosystem in the Charkhi Dadri and Bhiwani districts. While the 2009 ban offered a respite to Gurugram, Nuh, and Faridabad, the report highlights that the integrity of the range remains under constant threat. The Indian constitution through Articles 48A and 51A(g) imposes a duty on the State and citizens to protect the environment. As early as 1991, in Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court held that the right to life includes the right to enjoy pollution-free air and water.  This  expansive interpretation highlights that the lack of conservation of the Aravallis directly implicates Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Consequently, any regulatory framework that facilitates ecological degradation, as the 2025 elevation-based definition threatens to do, affects the constitutional rights of the citizenry. The survival of the Aravallis is, therefore, a matter of fundamental rights for current and future generations.

2026 Hearing: What is the way forward?

This tension between citizen-led documentation of ecological loss and the Court's recent pivot toward technical metrics sparked widespread protests. The public outcry was not merely about a change in the law; it was a response to the perceived abandonment of the protectionist jurisprudence that had long served as the Aravallis' only shield. The judicial trajectory took another significant turn on 21 January 2026, before a Bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant. This hearing served as a reality check, moving the discourse from abstract technical definitions to the grim ground reality of environmental degradation. By extending the December interim stay, the Court froze the flawed November framework, ensuring that no administrative actions could be taken until the proceedings reach a logical finality.

A pivotal moment in the hearing was the fundamental jurisprudential challenge raised by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal. He argued that the very exercise of “defining” a mountain range is legally and geologically precarious. By describing the Aravallis as “sub-tectonic strata,” Sibal posited that any attempt to impose a rigid legal definition on a vast, living ecosystem would inevitably lead to systemic failures. Furthermore, the proceedings highlighted the persistent gap between judicial pronouncements and executive enforcement. Despite the Court's directions, reports of unabated illegal mining in Rajasthan as recently as January 2026 prompted a stern warning from the Bench. Chief Justice Surya Kant’s observation that illegal mining leads to irreversible losses and devastating consequences reaffirms the gravity of the situation. The Court’s decision to constitute a new High-Powered Expert Committee, comprised of eminent environmentalists and scientists under their direct supervision, suggests a return to a more cautious, science-driven approach. This shift indicates a judicial realization that the protection of the Aravallis cannot be left to administrative discretion or reductionist formulas, but requires an impartial, expert-led assessment that respects the integrity of the entire range.

Conclusion

Ultimately, the Supreme Court must revert to a landscape-protective approach to ensure that the fundamental rights of citizens are not violated and years of settled jurisprudence are not rendered nugatory. While the law must balance environmental preservation with mining operations, this balance cannot be struck through scientific reductionism. The manner in which mining is undertaken must remain sustainable, scientific, and sensitive. The survival of North Western India's lungs depends on the Court’s ability to look beyond the letter of the law and recognize the irreversible real-life implications of its decisions.  [This post has been authored by Tvisha Bahadur, a third-year law student at JGLS]