The Supreme Court’s November 20 ruling on the Aravalli range has triggered sharp political reactions and street protests, with critics alleging the order weakens environmental protection by allowing mining
to continue. The court, however, has framed its intervention as a course correction — one that seeks to plug legal loopholes, rein in illegal mining, and place the fragile hill system under a uniform, enforceable regulatory regime rather than an unenforceable blanket ban.
ECOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE
The apex court unequivocally recognised the Aravalli range as ecologically indispensable for north India. It described the hills as a natural shield that prevents the Thar Desert from advancing eastwards, moderates extreme climate conditions, recharges groundwater aquifers and sustains biodiversity across Rajasthan, Haryana, Delhi and Gujarat.
The Bench also recorded the scale of damage already inflicted on the Aravallis — large-scale deforestation, rampant illegal mining, urban sprawl and infrastructure encroachment. This acknowledgement echoes what environmental protesters have long argued: that policy confusion and weak enforcement allowed systematic degradation of the hills.
Importantly, the Court linked the protection of the Aravallis to India’s international obligations under the UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), elevating the issue from a regional environmental concern to a matter of national and global responsibility.
NEW LEGAL DEFINITION
One of the most contentious elements of the order is the Supreme Court’s acceptance of a uniform definition of the Aravallis proposed by a government-appointed committee. This settles decades of legal ambiguity over what constitutes an Aravalli hill or range — ambiguity that mining operators and even state governments had exploited to bypass restrictions.
Under the accepted definition, any landform with a local relief of 100 metres or more qualifies as an Aravalli Hill, while clusters of such hills within 500 metres — including inter-hill areas — together form an Aravalli Range. Protesters argue this definition is less restrictive than that used earlier by the Forest Survey of India and could legitimise activities in areas previously considered protected. The Court, however, stressed that a clear, workable definition was essential to prevent selective interpretations that had enabled illegal mining.
INVIOLATE NO-MINING ZONES
Addressing fears of unchecked extraction, the Court carved out absolute no-mining zones. Mining is completely prohibited in protected areas, tiger reserves and corridors, eco-sensitive zones around them with a minimum one-kilometre buffer, and areas around Ramsar sites, notified wetlands, CAMPA plantations and government forests. These directions significantly tighten the legal firewall around the most sensitive parts of the Aravallis.
MANAGEMENT PLAN MANDATED
The Court mandated a comprehensive Management Plan for Sustainable Mining (MPSM) for the entire Aravalli range, to be prepared by the Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education. Modeled on the Saranda mining framework, the plan will scientifically classify the landscape into no-go zones, eco-sensitive areas, restoration-priority regions and zones where limited mining may be permissible, based on cumulative environmental impact and carrying capacity.
MINING – WHAT IS BANNED, WHAT CONTINUES
This calibrated approach lies at the centre of the current controversy. While protesters demand a total ban, the Supreme Court rejected that route, warning that absolute prohibitions often fuel illegal mining, empower mafias and accelerate ecological damage. Existing legal mines may continue, but under strict compliance and heightened scrutiny, with the threat of closure for any violation. Future mining, the Court made clear, will be possible only if cleared under the final MPSM — making enforcement, not symbolism, the real test of the order.
