'Must Be Protected’: Former Solicitor General Voices Concern As Supreme Court Accepts Centre’s Aravalli Definition

New Delhi: On November 20, the Supreme Court accepted the Centre’s definition of the Aravalli hills, which reportedly states that any hills in the range with an elevation of less than 100 metres are not subject to restrictions on mining.

The decision has sparked widespread concern, as the Aravallis- one of the world’s oldest mountain ranges- span nearly 650 km from Delhi to Gujarat, with about two-thirds of the range running through 15 districts of Rajasthan. The hills play a crucial role in protecting the region’s ecology, but sustained mining and encroachments are pushing the ancient range towards environmental degradation.

Former Solicitor General of India and senior advocate Ranjit Kumar, who has been the amicus curiae in the Aravalli case since 1995 questioned recent changes affecting the Aravallis, saying there was no justification for reopening mining in the region. He pointed out that the Supreme Court had repeatedly ruled against mining in the Aravallis- in 2002, 2005, and again in 2018- leading to the closure of all mining activities.

Following the closure of mining, the Aravallis witnessed significant groundwater recharge along with large-scale afforestation. The impact is visible in areas such as Faridabad and Gurgaon, where mining activity was earlier concentrated. A Forest Department notification banning mining was later upheld by the Supreme Court.

Ranjit Kumar said the Supreme Court’s earlier orders banning mining in the Aravallis remain unchanged and legally binding. He argued that issuing directions to reconsider the matter without altering those judgments is not in accordance with law and therefore warrants reconsideration by the Supreme Court.

Responding to a question on whether the court was indifferent, Kumar clarified that he would not say the Supreme Court “doesn’t care.” He suggested that relevant past judgments may not have been brought to the court’s notice when the recent order was passed, adding that it was incumbent upon concerned parties to place those rulings before the bench.

On suggestions that the Supreme Court was taking a pro-mining stance or rewarding administrative failure with regulatory relaxation, Kumar referred to the Punjab Act of 1901 and a Haryana Assembly bill that sought to override it, noting that the Supreme Court had restrained any action as the matter was sub judice. He said he was no longer closely involved, having stepped down as amicus curiae four to five years ago, but said he was alarmed by reports of a recent order defining what constitutes a mountain in the Aravallis.

Kumar also warned of severe environmental consequences, stating that the Aravalli ranges contain multiple layers of aquifers crucial for groundwater recharge across the region. He cautioned that destruction of the Aravallis would lead to depletion of aquifers and could cause desertification of Delhi, a risk that the Supreme Court itself had acknowledged in earlier judgments. He stressed that the Aravallis must be protected.

The Supreme Court bench headed by former Chief Justice of India BR Gavai on November 20 had pronounced an order accepting the definition of the Aravalli hills and ranges as per the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. The apex court also accepted the recommendations for sustainable mining in the Aravalli Hills and the steps to be taken for preventing illegal mining.

The three-judge bench directed the ministry to prepare a Management Plant for Sustainable Mining (MPSM), to "identify permissible areas for mining, ecologically sensitive, conservation-critical and restoration-priority areas within the Aravalli landscape where mining shall be strictly prohibited or permitted only under exceptional and scientifically justified circumstances; incorporate a thorough analysis of cumulative environmental impacts and the ecological carrying 15 capacity of the region; and include detailed post-mining restoration and rehabilitation measures."

As per the order, no new mining leases should be granted till the MPSM is finalised.

A New definition proposed by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change has further alarmed experts and residents.

Also Read: SC Verdict Redefines Aravallis: What Supreme Court’s Ruling Changes & Why it Matters | Explained