India’s push for self-reliance in defence manufacturing has brought critical minerals to the centre of national security planning. But this strategic imperative has collided with environmental concerns in the Aravalli Hills, one of India’s oldest and most fragile mountain systems. Recent court orders, policy moves, and official statements have sharpened a fundamental question: how should India balance ecological protection with strategic mineral needs?
Why critical minerals now matter for defence
On December 23, the Chief of Integrated Defence Staff highlighted that modern defence platforms — from aircraft and missiles to electronics and communication systems — depend heavily on critical minerals. Concentrated global supply chains, export controls, and geopolitical tensions have turned import dependence into a strategic vulnerability.
From the defence establishment’s perspective, secure access to mineral value chains is directly linked to operational readiness and indigenisation goals. This logic aligns with the objectives of the National Critical Minerals Mission, which seeks to strengthen domestic sourcing, processing, and recycling of minerals deemed essential for strategic and economic security.
What triggered the Aravalli Hills controversy
The current debate intensified after a November 20 order of the . The Court adopted a uniform operational definition of the “Aravalli Hills” and “Aravalli Range” for the purpose of regulating mining, froze new mining leases until a sustainable mining plan is prepared, and prohibited mining in “core” or “inviolate” areas.
However, it carved out an exception for critical, strategic, and atomic minerals notified under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 — a carve-out the Court itself described as a “strategic exemption”.
Under the new definition, an Aravalli Hill is any landform in the Aravalli districts rising at least 100 metres above the surrounding relief, while an Aravalli Range comprises two or more such hills located within 500 metres of each other.
Why the definition raised environmental concerns
Environmental groups and opposition parties argued that this technical definition risks fragmenting the landscape. By relying on elevation and distance thresholds, the Aravallis could be reduced to isolated “islands” of protected hills surrounded by valleys, plains, forests, and scrubland classified as non-Aravalli.
Such an approach, critics say, ignores ecological continuity. The surrounding landscapes play a crucial role in groundwater recharge, biodiversity movement, and preventing desertification. Given that the region is already stressed by illegal mining, urban expansion, and falling water tables, enforcement based on narrow definitions could further weaken protection.
Acknowledging these concerns, the Supreme Court has since placed the definition in abeyance and decided to constitute a new committee to re-examine the issue.
The problem with a ‘strategic exemption’
At the heart of the controversy lies the ambiguity around what qualifies as “strategic”. India lacks a clear, binding framework to resolve conflicts between climate commitments and industrial or defence-related demands. Instead, the Environment Ministry often relies on executive discretion through office memoranda, project-specific exemptions, and ad hoc appraisals.
The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) framework already allows exemptions from public consultation for projects linked to national security or “strategic considerations” as determined by the Central Government. Without transparent criteria, this has made the scope of “national interest” appear arbitrary and opaque, raising concerns about misuse.
How policy and judicial shifts have widened discretion
Since 2014, the Environment Ministry has progressively softened clearance processes to reduce friction for projects. Two developments in 2025 stand out.
First, in May, the Supreme Court ruled that ex post facto environmental clearances were alien to environmental jurisprudence, as they reversed the logic of prior scrutiny and risked irreversible damage. But in November, the Court recalled this judgment, reopening the door to post-facto regularisation — this time with judicial uncertainty built into the regulatory space.
Second, in September, the Environment Ministry issued an office memorandum exempting critical mineral mining projects from public consultations under the EIA Notification, 2006, citing the existing “strategic considerations” clause. This accelerated approvals while shrinking the space for community participation and independent scrutiny.
Forest law changes and scope creep
The Forest (Conservation) Amendment Act, 2023, further altered the regulatory landscape. It narrowed the definition of forest land requiring central clearance and expanded exemptions for land near roads, railways, borders, and security-related infrastructure.
While mining itself is not fully exempt, the amendments allow exploratory activities such as drilling and sampling before a formal mining proposal is submitted. In districts with mineral potential and left-wing extremism concerns, it has also become easier to build roads and power lines that can support exploration and future mining. This cumulative scope creep has raised alarms among environmentalists.
Why the Aravalli Hills are ecologically and strategically sensitive
The Aravallis play a critical role in groundwater recharge, air quality, and preventing desertification — functions closely tied to India’s Sustainable Development Goals on water security, clean air, and livable cities.
At the same time, the region is believed to host minerals of strategic interest. These include base metals in known belts, tungsten and other minerals classified as strategic, bulk construction materials, and potential deposits of lithium and rare-earth elements relevant to the green energy transition. This overlap of ecological fragility and mineral promise makes regulatory clarity essential.
The governance gap at the heart of the conflict
The controversy exposes a deeper governance deficit. As safeguards are weakened and information disclosure reduced, it becomes harder for the public to assess claims of “sustainable mining” or circular economy promises under the National Critical Minerals Mission.
If India is to invoke “strategic necessity” to justify exemptions in ecologically sensitive areas, clearer rules are essential. These include a binding test for invoking strategic considerations, mandatory landscape-level cumulative impact and groundwater assessments before granting leases, and transparent disclosure of alternatives such as imports, substitution, recycling, or sourcing from less sensitive regions.
Without such a framework, climate action and economic growth will continue to clash through ad hoc decisions, leaving environmental law to absorb political and strategic pressures.
What to note for Prelims?
- Location and ecological role of the Aravalli Hills.
- Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.
- National Critical Minerals Mission.
- Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006.
What to note for Mains?
- Critically examine the idea of “strategic exemption” in environmental regulation.
- Discuss the environmental significance of the Aravalli Hills.
- Analyse how defence and mineral security concerns interact with climate commitments.
- Suggest institutional reforms to balance national security with environmental protection.
