In a major move to protect the world’s oldest mountain system, the Supreme Court of India on Monday directed that a newly proposed expert committee tasked with defining the Aravalli hills and ranges must actively consult domain experts and public stakeholders.
To prevent bureaucratic delays, a three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vipul M Pancholi also ruled that the panel must remain compact and manageable.
“We cannot have a composition of $30$ people as it will become unmanageable,” the bench stated during the proceedings. “The committee must consult experts, and it should have $5$ to $7$ members. We will note it in the order.”
Balancing Expertise and Public Voice
The court’s decision emphasizes the need for a collaborative yet swift process. During the hearing, Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, representing the Centre, informed the bench that the Central Empowered Committee and the amicus curiae had compiled a shared list of potential panel members to be finalized.
Senior advocate and amicus curiae K. Parameshwar strongly advocated for public involvement, stating that the expert committee must account for stakeholders to ensure the public at large is heard. The apex court had previously directed the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) alongside other parties to suggest domain experts to help formulate an undisputed definition for the range.
The Stakes: Why a Definition Matters
The push for a clear definition follows intense debate over how to protect the Aravallis, which span Delhi, Haryana, Rajasthan, and Gujarat.
On November 20, 2025, the Supreme Court initially accepted a uniform definition suggested by an MoEFCC committee. Under those parameters:
- An “Aravalli Hill” was defined as any landform in designated districts with an elevation of $100$ meters or more above its local relief.
- An “Aravalli Range” was defined as a collection of two or more such hills situated within $500$ meters of one another.
At the time, the court also instituted a ban on granting fresh mining leases in these areas until final expert reports were submitted.
Why the Court Paused Its Previous Order
However, the uniform definition sparked widespread public outcry. Concerns grew that the strict $100$-meter elevation and $500$-meter gap criteria might inadvertently strip significant portions of the ecologically fragile range of their protected status.
Acknowledging these “critical ambiguities,” the Supreme Court intervened on December 29 last year, putting its November 20 directions in abeyance. To prevent ecological damage while the definition is reassessed, the court also stalled all active mining operations across the Aravalli ranges.
With the newly ordered $5$-to-$7$-member panel set to incorporate broader public and scientific feedback, the court aims to establish a balanced framework that ensures long-term environmental protection for the historic mountain range.
