On October 13, the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) submitted a proposal to the Supreme Court suggesting a revised definition of the Aravalli range, limiting it to areas rising 100 metres or more. However, a day later, the Supreme Court’s Central Empowered Committee (CEC) informed the amicus curiae assisting the bench that it had neither assessed nor endorsed this recommendation. Despite this, the apex court accepted the ministry’s 100-metre definition on November 20.
The CEC, constituted by the Supreme Court in 2002 to oversee compliance with its environmental and forest-related directives, took a clear position on the issue. In an October 14 communication reviewed by The Indian Express, the committee stressed that the definition prepared by the Forest Survey of India (FSI) should be followed to ensure effective protection of the Aravalli ecosystem.
According to the FSI’s assessment, 40,481 square kilometres across 15 districts in Rajasthan qualify as part of the Aravallis. The survey classified areas above a minimum elevation with a slope of at least three degrees as hills, a method that includes even smaller hill formations within the protected zone. This mapping exercise was conducted after the FSI was tasked by the CEC under a Supreme Court order in 2010.
When The Indian Express sought clarification on whether the CEC’s opposition to the ministry’s proposal was conveyed to the Supreme Court bench led by then Chief Justice of India B R Gavai, amicus curiae K Parmeshwar declined to comment. However, in a PowerPoint presentation submitted to the court - also reviewed by The Indian Express - Parmeshwar relied extensively on FSI data to challenge the ministry’s 100-metre benchmark.
The presentation argued that such a definition fragments the Aravalli range, undermining its geographical continuity. It warned that the new criterion would scatter hill formations and fail to conserve the range as a unified ecological system, concluding that the MoEF&CC’s approach lacked clarity and precision.
Earlier, in May 2024, the Supreme Court had instructed the environment ministry to constitute a committee, led by the Environment Secretary, to arrive at a uniform definition of the Aravallis to curb mining activity. Dr J R Bhatt represented the CEC on this panel.
In a subsequent letter dated October 14 and addressed to the amicus curiae, CEC chairperson and former Director General of Forests Siddhant Das noted that the committee had sought draft minutes of the October 3 meeting for review. However, he pointed out that no such documents were shared with the CEC, and the committee had not examined the report submitted by the ministry.
“As such, the views attributed to the CEC in the affidavit filed by the MoEF&CC are actually those of Dr J R Bhatt in his individual capacity, and not of the CEC,” the letter stated. Notably, the report annexed to the ministry’s affidavit was unsigned. The CEC reiterated that, in its considered view, the FSI’s definition should be adopted.
While Das declined to comment further, citing the judicial nature of the matter, Dr Bhatt also chose not to respond to queries.
Explaining the ecological implications, Parmeshwar referred to maps based on the FSI definition, noting that foothill contours mark the beginning of hill formations, while the boundary includes multiple hillocks - a feature typical across the Aravalli range. He cautioned that under the proposed 100-metre rule, many of these hillocks would lose protection and could be opened up for mining, potentially accelerating the eastward spread of the Thar Desert.
Parmeshwar reiterated that the ministry’s definition was vague and unacceptable.
Meanwhile, the Forest Survey of India issued a statement on social media, denying claims circulating in sections of the media that it had conducted a study suggesting 90 per cent of the Aravalli hills would lose protection following the Supreme Court’s decision.
However, on November 26, The Indian Express reported that an internal FSI assessment - not a formal study - had alerted the ministry and the CEC that the 100-metre threshold would exclude 91.3 per cent of the 12,081 Aravalli hills that are at least 20 metres high across Rajasthan’s 15 districts. The 20-metre height is considered critical for a hill’s role as a wind barrier.
The assessment further noted that if all 1,18,575 hills in the range are taken into account, more than 99 per cent would fall outside the proposed definition.
On Monday, Union Environment Minister Bhupender Yadav stated in New Delhi that mining is permitted in only 0.19 per cent of the Aravalli region, which spans approximately 1.44 lakh square kilometres - translating to about 278 square kilometres. However, ministry data indicates that this figure represents the area already under mining across Rajasthan, Gujarat and Haryana.
The ministry has yet to clarify how future mining and development activities in lower-lying Aravalli regions would be regulated once these areas are excluded under the revised definition.
The minister also said that the actual extent of Aravalli land covered under the 100-metre criterion would be determined only after ground-level demarcation. This has raised questions about how the ministry assured the Supreme Court that the new definition would encompass a larger area than the FSI’s three-degree slope-based classification.