In a significant legal development, the Supreme Court of India has decided to keep in abeyance its own directions issued on November 20, 2023, which had provided a specific definition for the Aravalli hills and ranges. The bench, comprising Justices B R Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, took this step while hearing an application filed by the Haryana government.
Court Seeks State's Response, Puts Order on Hold
The apex court has now issued a notice to the original applicant in the case, demanding their response to the state's plea. The court explicitly stated that its earlier directions from November 20, 2023, will remain in abeyance until the next date of hearing. This move provides temporary relief to the Haryana government, which had challenged the operational part of the November order.
The contested order had directed that the expression 'Aravalli hills' should be understood as per the dictionary meaning provided in the 1992 notification by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF). This notification was issued under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. Furthermore, the court had mandated that the entire area falling under the Aravalli ranges, as per this definition, must be considered a forest and granted protection under the landmark 1996 Supreme Court judgment in the T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad case.
The Heart of the Dispute: Definition and Its Implications
The core issue revolves around the precise geographical and legal definition of the Aravalli ranges. The Haryana government's application argued that the Supreme Court's November order effectively expanded the scope of protected forest land beyond what was intended. The state's contention is likely linked to the severe restrictions on mining and construction activities that follow once an area is classified as a 'forest' under the Godavarman judgment.
The 1992 MoEF notification, which the November order relied upon, was a crucial instrument for protecting the ecologically fragile Aravalli region. By ordering its dictionary meaning to be applied, the court aimed to cast a wide net of conservation. However, the state government's plea suggests that this interpretation could have far-reaching administrative and economic consequences for development projects in areas that are topographically part of the Aravallis but were not previously classified as forest land.
Conservation vs. Development: The Ongoing Tussle
This legal pause highlights the perennial conflict between environmental conservation and state-led development imperatives. The Aravalli range, a ancient mountain chain, acts as a critical green barrier against desertification from the Thar Desert and is a major groundwater recharge zone for the National Capital Region.
Environmental activists have long argued for stringent protection of the entire range to preserve biodiversity and prevent ecological degradation. On the other hand, state governments often point to the need for regulated land use for housing, infrastructure, and other economic activities. The Supreme Court's interim order to keep the definition in abeyance indicates the complexity of balancing these two legitimate concerns.
The next hearing in this case will be pivotal. The response from the original applicant, who sought the strict definition, will shape the future arguments. The Supreme Court's final decision will set a crucial precedent for how forest land is defined not just in Haryana, but potentially in other states with similar contested ecological zones. It will determine the legal fate of thousands of hectares of land and have a lasting impact on the environmental health of northern India.
