SC stays its Nov 20 order on Aravalli's '100-metre' definition; expert panel to examine issue

The Supreme Court heard a suo motu case on the definition of the Aravalli hills on Monday.

• Supreme Court puts Aravalli mining definition decision in abeyance
• New expert committee to review Aravalli hills definition and mining issues
• Centre and four states asked to respond before next hearing in January 2026

Did our AI summary help?

The Supreme Court on Monday “put in abeyance” its earlier decision, issued on November 20, to accept the central environment ministry’s definition of Aravalli hills and Aravalli range.

Acceptance of the said definition by the top court in November had exposed most of the Aravalli region to the possibility of being used for regulated mining activities.

A bench led by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant  also ordered the formation of a new expert committee to examine issues that required to be examined in terms of the definition of Aravallis.

"We deem it necessary that the recommendations of the committee and directions of this court be kept in abeyance. (The) stay will remain in effect till constitution of (a new) committee," stated the bench.

The court has also issued notice to the Centre and the four Aravalli states - Rajasthan, Gujarat, Delhi and Haryana, seeking their response to its suo motu case on the issue.

The apex court said the matter will be taken up for further hearing on January 21, 2026.

In its judgment on November 20 this year, the bench led by the then Chief Justice BR Gavai accepted the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) committee's recommended operational definition for the Aravalli hills and ranges in the context of mining.

The court also put the following  five questions to be considered.

•Whether the definition of Aravalli restricted to 500 m area creates a structural paradox where the conservation area is narrowed?

•Has it broadened the scope of any non-Aravalli area where regulated mining can be permitted?

• Whether regulated mining should be allowed in gaps — particularly where there are two hill areas of 100 metres or more in height, separated by a distance of around 700 metres — and how such gaps should be treated.

•What precise structural parameters will be utilised to ensure ecological continuity is not compromised?

•If a significant regulatory lacuna is discovered, then whether a significant assessment would be needed to maintain the structural integrity of the range?

A different bench of the top  court accepted a standardised definition proposed by the Centre. Under this framework, a landform is classified as an “Aravalli Hill" only if it rises 100 metres or more above the local relief. Furthermore, a “range" is defined only when two such hills are located within 500 metres of each other.