Editorial 1 : Aravalli protection review
Context
The Supreme Court has stayed its recent verdict that restricted the definition of the Aravalli range by applying a minimum elevation criterion, raising concerns over environmental protection and illegal mining.
Introduction
The Supreme Court’s decision to put on hold its earlier redefinition of the Aravallis is a timely and necessary corrective. By staying the application of the 100-metre elevation rule, the Court has acknowledged the ecological risks posed by a narrow, technocratic definition of a complex and ancient mountain ecosystem. The move reinforces the judiciary’s long-standing role in environmental conservation.
Background of the Issue
- The Aravalli range stretches over 650 km across Rajasthan, Haryana and Delhi.
- For over two decades, the Supreme Court has protected the range using an expansive interpretation of forests under the Godavarman (1996) judgment.
- Illegal mining persisted due to regulatory gaps and inconsistent definitions of the Aravallis across states.
- To address this, the Court sought a uniform definition of the mountain system.
Controversy Over the 100-metre Criterion
- The environment ministry’s expert panel proposed that only landforms above 100 m elevation be classified as Aravallis.
- The Supreme Court accepted this criterion in its November 20 verdict.
- This redefinition would have drastically reduced the legally protected area of the range.
- It triggered widespread protests, particularly in Rajasthan, due to ecological concerns.
Ecological and Environmental Concerns
- Forest Survey of India noted that less than 10% of the Aravalli hills meet the 100-m threshold.
- The Court’s amicus curiae and the Central Empowered Committee warned that large tracts could be opened to mining.
- The Aravallis act as a critical ecological barrier against desertification and air pollution.
- They play a key role in protecting the Indo-Gangetic plains from dust and toxic smog.
Supreme Court’s Course Correction
- A three-judge Bench led by the Chief Justice took suo motu cognisance of concerns raised by experts and the media.
- The 100-metre rule has been kept in abeyance.
- An expert committee will be constituted to re-examine scientific and ecological criteria for mapping the Aravallis.
- The committee will reassess definitions keeping ecosystem integrity at the core.
Importance of an Ecosystem-Based Approach
- The Aravallis consist of hills, ridges, plateaus and forests that function as a single ecological unit.
- In 2010, the Supreme Court rejected a similar height-based criterion proposed by the Rajasthan government.
- In 2018, the Court recognised the role of even small hills in controlling pollution in northern India.
- Fragmented definitions risk undermining the ecological continuity of the range.
Wider Significance
- The Aravallis are nearly two billion years old, among the world’s oldest mountain systems.
- Weakening their protection could worsen air quality and water stress in north-west India.
- The verdict reinforces the precautionary principle in environmental jurisprudence.
- It signals judicial resistance to development models that dilute ecological safeguards.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision to revisit its earlier ruling reflects institutional sensitivity to ecological science and public concern. Protecting the Aravallis requires recognising them as a continuous ecosystem rather than isolated landforms. Sustained judicial oversight, scientific rigour, and strong regulatory enforcement are essential to safeguard this critical natural barrier against pollution, mining, and environmental degradation.