The Supreme Court’s order of November 20, 2025, redefining the Aravali mountain range using a 100-metre height criterion has triggered an unprecedented backlash. At the heart of the controversy lies a fundamental question: can a two-billion-year-old ecological system be reduced to a single geometric threshold without imperilling its environmental and socio-economic functions?
What the Supreme Court decided — and why it matters
The Supreme Court accepted the Union government’s proposal to define the Aravali hills as landforms rising at least 100 metres above local relief. This definition was extended uniformly across all states through which the Aravali range passes, including Rajasthan, Haryana, and parts of Gujarat. Alongside this, the Court ordered a freeze on new mining leases until a sustainable mining plan is prepared by the Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education, echoing earlier interventions in Karnataka and Goa.
While the Court’s intent to curb rampant and illegal mining is clear, the chosen definition has become the flashpoint.
The core ecological concern with the 100-metre rule
Critics argue that the 100-metre criterion fundamentally misunderstands the geomorphology of the Aravali system. The Aravalis are not a single continuous wall but a fragmented chain of ridges, hillocks, slopes, and gaps — many of which are below 100 metres in height but play an outsized ecological role.
In districts such as Sikar and Jhunjhunu, numerous ridges rise only 40–60 metres. Under the new definition, these would no longer be legally recognised as part of the Aravali. Yet these low ridges form the first line of defence against the eastward expansion of the Thar Desert. Their degradation creates wind corridors that funnel sand towards Delhi and the National Capital Region.
What official data itself reveals
The Forest Survey of India conducted a detailed mapping of the Aravali landscape to assist the Supreme Court and the Central Empowered Committee. The findings were stark: of 12,081 mapped hill features, only 1,048 — about 8.7 per cent — met the strict “100-metre above local relief” criterion.
The Union Environment Ministry has not disputed these numbers, but has argued that protection would extend to hill complexes, slopes, and clusters even if individual peaks fall below the threshold. Critics counter that once a feature is legally reclassified as “plain”, regulatory protection weakens, especially in regions vulnerable to mining and real estate pressure.
Wildlife corridors and water security at risk
The ecological stakes extend beyond geomorphology. The Alwar–Bhiwadi belt is a critical wildlife corridor linking Sariska and surrounding forest landscapes. Leopards and other species rely on low-lying “transit hillocks” — many of which would be excluded under the 100-metre rule.
Mining has already lowered hill heights in parts of Mahendragarh and Alwar. Reclassification of mineral-rich but low-elevation areas in Chittorgarh and Udaipur as “plains” risks accelerating extraction. This threatens groundwater recharge, surface hydrology, and biodiversity — all of which Delhi and adjoining regions depend on.
Why the choice of committee drew criticism
Another fault line lies in institutional process. The Supreme Court constituted a committee chaired by the Environment Ministry Secretary, despite having long relied on independent expert bodies like the CEC. Although both the CEC and FSI were included, their reservations — particularly opposition to the 100-metre criterion — did not shape the final outcome.
The Amicus Curiae, K. Parmeshwar, strongly criticised the definition during hearings, warning of serious ecological consequences. The Additional Solicitor General, representing the Centre, dismissed these concerns as emotional and argued for uniformity based on Rajasthan’s existing practice.
Public outrage and the political economy of mining
The backlash reflects deep public distrust rooted in decades of illegal mining and unauthorised construction in Haryana and Rajasthan, often enabled by political and corporate collusion. For many, the judgement symbolised a dilution of hard-won judicial protection for the Aravalis.
Concerns extend to desertification, loss of biodiversity corridors, and the drying up of water sources supplying Delhi and its periphery. The Aravalis’ already degraded nature makes them more, not less, vulnerable to definitional dilution.
What could have been done differently
Environmental experts argue that geomorphology and slope, not height alone, should define the Aravali. The CEC had recommended protection for areas beyond a 3-degree slope — a criterion that would have captured ridges, slopes, and hillocks integral to the landscape.
Had this approach been adopted, the November 20 order might have become a landmark for balancing development with conservation. Instead, uniformity was prioritised over ecological nuance.
The way forward after the backlash
Following intense public pressure, the government halted all mining activities in the Aravali region on December 24, 2025. An appeal against the Supreme Court order is now pending before a new Bench.
A course correction is still possible. The Environment Ministry can file an affidavit endorsing the CEC’s slope-based approach and expand the mandate of the sustainable management plan beyond mining to all forms of development in the Aravali landscape.
What to note for Prelims?
- Aravali Range: ecological role and geographical spread
- Forest Survey of India and Central Empowered Committee
- Difference between geomorphological and height-based definitions
- Role of the Supreme Court in environmental governance
What to note for Mains?
- Critically examine the Supreme Court’s role in balancing development and environmental protection.
- Explain why a height-based definition of mountains can be ecologically flawed.
- Discuss the importance of the Aravali range for desertification control and water security.
- Analyse institutional challenges in environmental decision-making in India.
