Aravali in the headlines: Why the government says the fear over the Supreme Court’s definition is misplaced. explainer news

The future of the Aravalli Range has become a national talking point after the Supreme Court’s decision on 20 November to approve a new, uniform definition for what qualifies as the Aravalli Hills and Range. The decision uses a height benchmark of 100 meters to identify a hill and a proximity rule of 500 meters to identify a border.

While environmental groups fear that the 100-metre height benchmark limits the recognized footprint of India’s oldest mountain range, the government says this interpretation is wrong and says the decision actually strengthens protections. According to the Centre, the decision removes decades of ambiguity, expands the protective boundary by covering the entire hill systems, and most importantly, imposes a complete moratorium on new mining leases in the entire region.

The debate has been intense on the ground and on social media, but the Center says “more than 90 per cent” of the Aravalli landscape is protected under the Supreme Court-approved framework. It argues that claims of weak safeguards arise from a misunderstanding of the definition rather than the substance of the decision.

However, environmental groups have warned that many of the low hills forming the ecological backbone of the range may fall out of formal classification.

This explainer explains what the Supreme Court approved, why concerns grew, and how the government says the decision strengthens, not weakens, protections for the Aravalli system.

which has actually been approved by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court accepted the recommendations of a high-level committee constituted under the Environment Ministry Secretary in May 2024, which included representatives from Rajasthan, Haryana, Gujarat and Delhi and technical bodies such as the Forest Survey of India and the Geological Survey of India.

The committee was tasked with resolving the long-standing problem of inconsistent state definitions of the Aravalli system. Only Rajasthan had a formal definition, introduced in 2006, while other states used varying or vague criteria. The court held that this discrepancy contributed to ecological degradation and required a scientific, map-verifiable standard.

Under the new definition, an Aravali hill is any landform rising 100 meters or more above the local relief. The Aravalli mountain range is a group of two or more such hills that are located at a distance of 500 meters from each other, the entire landform bounded by the lowest contour is considered to be preserved, regardless of internal variations in height.

The court reiterated the ecological importance of the Aravalis as a shield against desertification, an important groundwater recharge structure and a major biodiversity corridor. Importantly, it ordered that no new mining leases would be granted until the Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education (ICFRE) prepared a management plan for sustainable mining (MPSM) covering the entire landscape.

Why did the new definition create fear?

Environmentalists and local communities argue that the 100 meter limit does not include many lower peaks that have historically been understood as part of the Aravalli system.

An internal assessment by the Indian Forest Survey shows that more than 90 per cent of the structures may not meet the height criteria. In Rajasthan, only 1,048 out of 12,081 mapped hills – only 8.7 per cent – ​​qualify. Critics say these low-lying hills are important for aquifer recharge, dust regulation and ecological sustainability and emphasize that reducing the recognized footprint increases the risks to an area that is already showing signs of stress.

Concerns have also emerged over omissions in the list of Aravalli districts presented in the court by the Centre, which also includes areas like Chittorgarh and Sawai Madhopur. Protests in Rajasthan and Haryana and an increase in public statements from environmental activists reflect fears that weakening the definition could undo decades of conservation work.

How does the government explain the decision?

The government says the fear arises from misinterpretation. It argues that the 100 meter height criterion is only a way of classifying hills, not a limit of safety. Protection applies to the entire mountain system bounded by the lowest boundary line, meaning that slopes, foothills, valleys and landforms in between are all included. According to the Centre, the notion that landforms below 100 meters are now open for mining is wrong and ignores the contour-based protection upheld by the court.

The Center says the 500 meter rule strengthens security by recognizing ecologically linked structures as a single border. Environment Minister Bhupendra Yadav has repeatedly said that “more than 90 percent of the Aravalli region will remain protected” and “no relaxation has been given.”

He has also urged critics to “stop spreading misinformation”, stressing that the decision expands protection by adopting scientific mapping, treating the Aravalli as a sustainable landscape and eliminating loopholes arising from inconsistent state practices.

According to the government, the new approach treats the Aravalis as a continuous geological ridge from Gujarat to Delhi, rather than as isolated hills. This landscape-level plan aims to prevent fragmentation, one of the biggest ecological risks facing the region.

Officials said the measures will help:

• Stop the spread of desertification in the Thar Desert
• Protect groundwater recharge areas in foothills and valleys
• Preserve biodiversity corridors and habitats
• Protect Delhi-NCR’s “green lungs” that impact air quality and local climate

Why does the Center say security measures are stricter now?

The government says the framework approved by the Supreme Court introduces stronger safeguards than those already in place. Mining is prohibited in core and intact areas including protected areas, eco-sensitive areas, wetlands, tiger reserves and campa plantation sites as well as areas adjacent to such areas. Limited exemptions exist only for strategic, critical and nuclear minerals and require strict monitoring.

Officials say the historical pattern of mining on or dangerously close to mountain bases was one of the primary drivers of the decline. By using contour-based mapping for the entire hill system, the new framework closes the gap that previously technically allowed drilling just beneath the hills while avoiding the summit. The Center says mandatory mapping on Survey of India charts before any mining decision is taken to ensure transparency and uniformity.

The government also points out that legally sanctioned mining covers only 0.19 per cent of the Aravalli region in Rajasthan, Haryana and Gujarat. Delhi does not allow mining at all. According to the Centre, the primary threat is illegal mining, and the government says surveillance has been tightened with drones, CCTV, weighbridges and district-level enforcement teams.

Political reactions to the decision

This decision has given rise to sharp political disagreements. Congress leaders have accused the Center of prioritizing mining interests over environmental protection and warned of “very serious environmental and public health consequences”. Former Rajasthan chief minister Ashok Gehlot publicly associated himself with the #SaveAravalli campaign, while other Congress leaders extended the argument that the 100-metre rule could take away protection from nearly 90 per cent of the hills.

Independent MLA from Rajasthan Ravindra Singh Bhati has also opposed the decision. He warned that the decision “threatens 90 per cent of the hills” and described it as a “severe blow” to the ecological balance of the region, vowing, “We will save the Aravalis.”

The government has strongly rejected these claims. Bhupendra Yadav has reiterated that “no exemptions have been made” and the framework approved by the Supreme Court protects “more than 90 per cent of the Aravalli region”, adding that the criticism is dangerous and contrary to the scientific mapping standards endorsed by the court.