In a significant move, the Supreme Court of India has put its own November 2025 judgment on hold, which had accepted a controversial 100-metre height-based definition for the ecologically fragile Aravalli range. The court cited a "significant outcry among environmentalists" and concerns over potential misinterpretation as key reasons for this decision.
Court Stays Order, Flags Critical Ambiguities
A vacation bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices J K Maheswari and A G Masih, on Monday, directed that the November 20, 2025 judgment be "kept in abeyance." The bench initiated suo motu proceedings following widespread public dissent over the earlier ruling.
The court observed that prima facie, both the committee report that proposed the definition and its subsequent judgment had "omitted to expressly clarify certain critical issues." It expressed profound concern that ambiguity in the directives could lead to improper implementation, undermining the Aravalli's ecological integrity.
High-Powered Expert Panel to Undertake Comprehensive Review
To address these concerns, the Supreme Court has proposed constituting a high-powered expert committee comprising domain specialists. This panel will undertake a thorough, independent assessment of the earlier committee's report before any implementation proceeds.
The court has fixed the next hearing for January 21, 2026. Until the proceedings reach a logical conclusion, the recommendations and directions of the November 2025 judgment will remain suspended. This interim stay aims to prevent any "irreversible administrative or ecological actions" based on the current, contested framework.
Key Questions the New Panel Must Examine
The court outlined several critical ambiguities the expert committee must resolve. A primary concern is whether defining the 'Aravalli Hills and Ranges' exclusively as a 500-metre area between two hills of 100-metre height creates a structural paradox, narrowing protected territory and inversely broadening 'non-Aravalli' zones. This could potentially facilitate unregulated mining in ecologically contiguous but technically excluded areas.
Other vital questions include:
- Whether hills forming a contiguous ecological formation should be protected even if the intervening gap exceeds 500 metres, and if mining is permissible in such gaps.
- The factual accuracy of criticism stating that only 1,048 out of 12,081 hills in Rajasthan meet the 100-metre threshold, thus stripping protection from the majority.
- The need for a detailed scientific survey to measure all hill elevations for a more nuanced assessment.
The panel's study must also provide a definitive list of included and excluded regions, analyze the ecological impact of 'sustainable mining' within newly demarcated areas, and evaluate the long-term environmental consequences of the proposed definition.
Mining Ban to Continue; States and Centre Notified
Emphasizing abundant caution, the bench reiterated its earlier directive from May 9, 2024. It ordered unequivocally that no permissions for new or renewed mining leases shall be granted in the Aravalli Hills and Ranges, as per a 2010 Forest Survey of India report, without the Supreme Court's prior approval.
The court issued notices to the Central Government and the states of Rajasthan, Haryana, Gujarat, and the National Capital Territory of Delhi. It also sought the assistance of Attorney General R Venkataramani, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, amicus curiae Senior Advocate K Parameshwar, and the court-appointed Central Empowered Committee (CEC).
Background: The 'Indispensable Ecological Backbone'
In its order, the Supreme Court underscored the Aravalli's vital role, describing it as the "indispensable ecological and socio-economic backbone" of North-Western India and a crucial barrier against desertification. It acknowledged the range faces immense strain from decades of unchecked urbanization, deforestation, and resource extraction.
The legal journey began in May 2024 when the court, noting inconsistent definitions of the Aravallis across states, formed a committee under the Union Environment Secretary to propose a uniform definition. This committee recommended the 100-metre/500-metre criteria.
While the Centre highlighted the committee's safeguards for sustainable mining, the amicus curiae had warned that accepting this definition would open lower hills to mining, breaking the range's continuity and endangering its entire ecology. The November 2025 judgment had initially accepted the committee's report, mandating a Management Plan for Sustainable Mining before new licenses could be issued—a decision now paused for deeper scrutiny.
