The suo motu case was initiated amid protests over a potential threat to the Aravallis following the Supreme Court’s decision to accept a committee’s recommendations on the mountain range.
The Supreme Court on Monday said that certain clarifications were necessary regarding the definitions it recently approved for the Aravalli Hills, while staying a ruling passed last month on the issue.
The Court also stated that a committee of experts will be constituted to study the environmental impact of the recommendations made by an earlier committee that was mostly comprised of bureaucrats.
A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices JK Maheshwari and AG Masih thus stayed the recent ruling on Aravalli that was based on the recommendations made by a panel constituted to define the Aravalli range for the purposes of mining.
The Court passed today’s order in a suo motu case on issues concerning the definition of the Aravalli Hills, following widespread protests over fears of threats to the mountain range.
“We direct that recommendations of the committee and findings of the Supreme Court … shall remain in abeyance till then. Case to be taken up on January 21, 2026,” the Court ordered.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the Union government.
“There were a lot of misconceptions regarding orders, the government’s role, etc. An expert committee was constituted and a report was given which the court accepted,” Mehta said.
CJI Kant said that an independent expert opinion was needed to resolve ambiguities and to provide definitive guidance on the issues concerning Aravalli, particularly the definitions of hills and ranges.
The Court added that there was a need to examine whether the restrictive demarcation approved last month would broaden the scope of areas where activities like mining can be permitted.
“An analysis of whether sustainable mining or regulated mining within the newly demarcated Aravalli area, notwithstanding the regulated oversight, would result in any adverse ecological consequences… that aspect can be examined,” CJI Kant said.
It then issued notice to the Union government as well as the concerned State governments. In the interim, the Court ordered that the earlier court directions as well as the previous committee’s recommendations shall remain in abeyance.
In its order staying the November 20 judgment and the recommendations of the expert committee in the Aravalli matter, the Supreme Court acknowledged that its earlier ruling had triggered a wave of challenges and requests for clarification.
At the same time, the Bench made it clear that these challenges were not being entertained on the basis of scientific merit. The Court recorded that it had “no scientific reasons justifying any ex-facie acceptance of the same, nor any cogent evidence or expert testimony to substantiate these individual contentions.” Despite this, the Court said that it appeared prima facie that there were gaps in the articulation of its earlier directions.
The bench took note of the wider reaction to the judgment, recording that there had been “a significant outcry among environmentalists,” who had raised concerns about how the newly adopted definition and the Court’s directions might be interpreted and implemented on the ground.
According to the Court, this reaction could not be brushed aside. The order states that such public dissent and criticism “appear to stem from the perceived ambiguity and lack of clarity in certain terms and directives issued by this Court.” In that backdrop, the Bench underlined the need for institutional caution before allowing the directions to operate.
The Aravalli range spans across Delhi, Haryana, Rajasthan and Gujarat. The suo motu case was initiated amid protests over a potential threat to the Aravallis following the Supreme Court’s decision to accept a committee’s recommendations on the mountain range.
Last month, the top court had approved an elevation-linked definition for classifying landforms as part of the Aravalli Hills for the purpose of mining regulation. According to reports, the definition will exclude more than 90 per cent of the Aravallis for the purpose of mining.
In May 2024, the Court in a matter related to illegal mining in Aravalli had called for properly defining the mountain range. It was then noted that States had adopted different definitions for “Aravalli Hills/Ranges”.
A constituted a committee to look into the issues then submitted a report in October this year, suggesting various measures to protect and preserve the Aravalli Hills.
It said that any landform in the Aravalli districts having an elevation of 100 metres or more from the local relief shall be termed as Aravalli Hills.
