Supreme Court orders expert review of Aravalli definition before implementation

It matters to citizens because it addresses the legal and ecological boundaries of protected areas, which directly impacts mining regulations and environmental protection in the region.

Who it concerns: The Supreme Court of India, the Union of India (including the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change), concerned States, the Aravali Bachao Citizens Movement, People for Aravallis, the Mining Engineers’ Association of India, and various stakeholders and amicus curiae.

What the document says

• The Court reiterated the necessity of constituting a High-Powered Committee of domain experts to evaluate the Report dated 03.10.2025.
• The Court directed that this expert evaluation must occur prior to the implementation of the Committee’s Report or the execution of directions from the judgment dated 20.11.2025.
• The Court identified specific issues for expert review, including whether the 500-meter definition between hills creates a 'structural paradox' that narrows protected territory and broadens 'non-Aravalli' areas for unregulated mining.
• The Court questioned whether hills with elevations of 100 meters or above constitute a contiguous ecological formation even if the distance between them exceeds 500 meters.
• The Court sought clarification on the factual accuracy of claims that only 1,048 out of 12,081 hills in Rajasthan meet the 100-meter elevation threshold.
• The Court requested the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) to suggest names for the High-Powered Committee.
• The MoEFCC stated it had no objection to the names suggested by the Amicus Curiae and did not propose additional names.
• The Court emphasized that decisions of such consequence require expert evaluation to ensure they are scientifically sound and consistent with environmental protection principles.

Also in the document

• The document notes that the matter was heard on 25-05-2026.
• The Court highlighted the fragile ecosystem and rich biodiversity of the Aravalli Hills as a reason for requiring multidisciplinary expert input.
• The Court expressed concern that implementation of the current definition could lead to ecological consequences that are difficult or impossible to reverse.