INTRODUCTION
The Aravalli Hills, which begins from Delhi and stretches through Haryana, Rajasthan, and Gujarat, is one of India’s oldest mountain ranges and has long been an important environmental resource. In addition to acting as a natural barrier to stop the Thar Desert from spreading, this ancient mountain range is essential for replenishing groundwater, sustaining forests and wildlife, and regulating the local climate. But decades of illicit mining, unrestrained urban growth, and land encroachment have damaged the environment, upset fragile ecosystems, and jeopardized the air quality and water security of entire areas.
In light of these circumstances, on November 20, 2025, the Supreme Court of India rendered a historic ruling intended to address this long-standing harm and redefine how India strikes a balance between environmental protection and development. By doing so, the Court aimed to resolve the ambiguity surrounding what constitutes the “Aravalli Hills and Ranges,” allowing mining to be permitted only in a sustainable manner without endangering the environment further.
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
The judgment did not arise on its own, it was built on the foundation laid by two landmark environmental cases, that is T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, in which the Supreme Court has repeatedly stepped in to address environmental damage caused by industrial and mining activities.
For years, concerns about the Aravallis were being heard separately under these two cases: mining related disputes in Haryana were being considered under the M.C. Mehta case, while similar issues in Rajasthan were being heard separately. To avoid conflicting orders, the Court directed that all Aravalli related matters be placed before the Chief Justice of India and heard together by a single Bench.
INTERNATIONAL COMMITMENTS
The Supreme Court based its reasoning on India’s international commitments as well as domestic law which specifically included the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), which India ratified in 1996. India is required by this convention to take long-term steps to halt desertification, safeguard delicate ecosystems, and prevent land degradation.
As the range serves as a natural barrier against desert expansion into fertile regions of North India, the Court made it clear that the degradation of the Aravallis directly undermines these obligations. The Court noted that ignoring the degradation of this range would directly contradict these obligations.
DEFINING THE ARAVALLI HILLS
One of the central problems identified by the Court was the absence of a uniform definition of the Aravalli Hills, there were different criteria being followed in different states, while some had no formal definition at all. This inconsistency made regulation weak and allowed mining to continue even in ecologically sensitive areas.
To address this, the Court accepted a uniform, based on the height of the land, suggested by experts, under which landforms rising 100 metres or more from their surrounding terrain would be classified as Aravalli Hills, with nearby hills forming an Aravalli Range. This move was intended to close long-standing loopholes and bring consistency to environmental regulation across states.
MINING AND LIVELIHOODS
The Court took a moderate stance rather than outright banning mining. It recognised that mining employs thousands of people, and that outright prohibitions frequently will promote illegal mining and criminal activity. As a result, existing legal mining operations were allowed to continue, subject to strict environmental safeguards, at the same time, the Court prohibited mining in core and untouched areas such as wildlife sanctuaries, tiger corridors, wetlands, groundwater recharge zones, and protected forests. Until additional scientific evaluation is finished, no new mining leases will be issued.
THE SUSTAINABLE MINING MANAGEMENT PLAN
A key direction in the judgment is the preparation of a Management Plan for Sustainable Mining (MPSM) for the entire Aravalli range. This plan is to be prepared by scientific institutions, in which they will identify areas where mining must be permanently prohibited, zones where limited mining may be allowed, and measures for restoring land after mining ends. Until this plan is finalized, the Court has halted the grant of new mining leases, reinforcing the principle that environmental decisions must be guided by science rather than short term economic interests.
WHAT ABOUT HILLS BELOW 100 METRES?
Despite its strengths, the judgment has raised concerns among environmentalists and local communities regarding the 100 meter elevation threshold. According to the FSI’s analysis, out of 12,081 mapped hill formations that rise at least 20 metres, only 1,048 hills meet the 100 meter threshold, this means that over 90 per cent of the Aravalli hills in Rajasthan may fall outside the new legal definition. Environmental experts warn that excluding these areas from the formal definition could leave them vulnerable to mining and development.
These smaller hills often play a crucial role in groundwater recharge, biodiversity support, and maintain the continuity of the mountain range. If these smaller hills are cleared for mining, it would create gaps and cut the Aravalli mountain chain into pieces, breaking its natural connection. This would speed up the damage to the environment, from soil erosion to water loss, including the risk of desertification spreading eastward, making the need for the scientific management plan even more urgent and vital.
PUBLIC RESPONSE
The adoption of the 100 meter height threshold has deeply alarmed environmental experts and activists, with some characterizing it as a potential “death warrant” for significant portions of the Aravalli range. Their main concern is the exclusion of almost 90% of the hills, many of which are vital for preserving ecological balance despite their lower elevation. Weakening protection for these areas, according to critics, could result in widespread ecological harm, increased air pollution (especially in the Delhi-NCR region), groundwater depletion, and biodiversity loss. Growing anxiety has also been reflected in public reaction, as locals worry about long-term health and environmental repercussions.
These concerns have been translated into protests by local communities, environmental groups, and public figures, all demanding stronger safeguards and reconsideration of the current definition to prevent irreversible harm to the Aravalli ecosystem. Critics have also pointed out that local communities, who are most affected by mining and land degradation, had little role in shaping the definition or regulatory framework adopted by the Court. Residents living around the Aravallis often depend on the land for water, agriculture, and livelihood, yet their concerns are typically addressed only after damage becomes visible, the absence of meaningful community participation risks turning environmental protection into a top-down exercise, disconnected from ground realities.
CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court’s ruling on the Aravalli Hills comes at a very important moment. On one side, it tries to bring clarity, uniform rules, and scientific thinking to an environmental problem that has been ignored for years. On the other side, using a strict height-based definition may weaken protection for many parts of the Aravalli range that are still ecologically important. If the proposed Sustainable Mining Management Plan goes beyond technical limits and focuses on how the land actually functions as an ecosystem, the judgment could help protect the Aravallis in the long run.
However, if this does not happen, the decision may allow further damage like breaking the mountain chain, lowering groundwater levels, and increasing the risk of desert-like conditions spreading toward densely populated areas such as Delhi. In the end, the true impact of this judgment will depend not on what it promises, but on how carefully it is carried out and whether environmental protection is treated as essential rather than just a matter of paperwork.
References:
- Economic Times. “Save Aravalli campaign floods X: Why has the Supreme Court’s ruling on Aravallis mountain range triggered an alarm and why experts call it a ‘death warrant’.”: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/new-updates/save-aravalli-campaign-floods-x-why-has-the-supreme-courts-ruling-on-aravallis-mountain-range-triggered-an-alarm-and-why-experts-call-it-death-warrant-explained/articleshow/126088733.cms
- The Times of India. “Environmentalist warns of devastation in wake of SC’s Aravalli ruling.”: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/jaipur/environmentalist-warns-of-devastation-in-wake-of-scs-aravalli-ruling/articleshow/126064345.cms
- Supreme Court of India. In Re: Issue Relating to Definition of Aravali Hills and Ranges, Judgment dated 20 November 2025.: https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/1995/2997/2997_1995_1_1502_66178_Judgement_20-Nov-2025.pdf
Author: Shambhavi Jha, 1st Year Student, Nirma University, Ahmedabad
Read our latest article: LAY’S VS. JAY’S: PHONETIC SIMILARITY AS A GROUND FOR TRADEMARK CANCELLATION – J.P. Associates