SINCE A CONTROVERSIAL order passed in November 2025, by a bench led by former Chief Justice of India (‘CJI’) B.R. Gavai, the Supreme Court in the last two months has attempted to shift gears in a case with high stakes concerning the ecological future of the Aravalli hills in North Western India.
First on December 29, 2025, in a new suo motu case, a bench led by CJI Surya Kant placed the controversial November 20 judgment, which had approved a controversial definition of the Aravalli hills, brought out by the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, in abeyance. Subsequently in a hearing conducted on January 21, 2026, the same bench extended the interim order passed on December 29.
The proceedings underscores a rare judicial admission of the need for abundant caution following a significant outcry from environmentalists and civil society who feared the November verdict would strip protection from vast swathes of the ancient mountain range.
The November 20 Judgment and the storm it triggered
On November 20, 2025, the Supreme Court delivered a judgment accepting a committee-recommended “uniform definition” of the Aravalli Hills and Ranges for the purpose of regulating mining. This topographical definition classified Aravalli hills as landforms with an elevation of 100 metres or more from local relief, and Aravalli ranges as clusters of such hills located within 500 metres of each other.
Based on this definition, the November judgment had prohibited mining in core areas but permitted sustainable mining in other areas.
Environmentalists warned that the definition was overly narrow and could exclude vast stretches of the Aravallis from protection, particularly lower hillocks and ecologically contiguous areas. They warned that losing vegetation on these smaller hills could disrupt local rainfall patterns, lower groundwater levels, intensify human-wildlife conflict, and increase heat stress. Critics also pointed out that in Rajasthan alone only a small fraction of recorded hills might meet the 100-metre threshold potentially allowing mining in areas long recognised as part of the Aravalli ecosystem.
December 29, 2025: Supreme Court hits pause
On December 27, 2025, a three-judge bench comprising CJI Surya Kant and Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Augustine George Masih, took suo motu cognizance of the backlash. In a candid order, the Court acknowledged that the November judgement had prompted a “spate of Interlocutory Applications” and criticism from environmentalists concerned about potential misinterpretation and improper implementation.
The Court also noted the absence of “scientific reasons justifying any ex-facie acceptance” of the committee’s restrictive definition. This new definition threatened to remove protection from North Western India’s “green lungs”. The Bench highlighted specific and concerning statistics: it was claimed that under the 100-metre elevation threshold only 1,048 hills out of Rajasthan’s 12,081 would qualify for protection, effectively stripping the remaining lower ranges of environmental cover.
Crucially, the bench acknowledged that both the committee report and the November 20 judgement had not clearly addressed several key issues. It raised concerns over whether the 500-metre hill criterion artificially restricted the protected area or whether it might have inadvertently "broadened the scope of ‘non-Aravalli’ areas," thereby facilitating mining in terrains that are "ecologically contiguous but technically excluded by this definition".
To address these issues, the Court proposed constituting a High-Powered Expert Committee comprising domain specialists. The committee’s mandate would go beyond definitional semantics and has been tasked with an exhaustive and holistic examination of the region.
The court laid down a specific five-point mandate that the committee must address:
i) The Committee must provide a precise list of specific regions that fall within the scope of the recommended definition, removing any guesswork regarding protected zones.
ii) Crucially, the committee is tasked with identifying the territories that would be excluded from protection under the proposed criteria, ensuring that "non-Aravalli" labels do not become loopholes for exploitation.
iii) The body must analyze whether allowing "sustainable" or "regulated" mining in the newly demarcated areas even with oversight would still result in adverse ecological consequences.
iv) The Committee must assess whether areas no longer covered by the definition face the risk of eventual erasure or degradation, which could compromise the integrity of the entire range.
v) Finally, the Court has demanded a "multi-temporal evaluation" to project both the short-term and long-term environmental impacts of implementing the new definition.
Until this exercise is complete, the November 20 judgment and the committee’s recommendations would remain in abeyance.
Finally, the Court ordered that no new or renewed mining leases in the Aravallis, as defined by the Forest Survey of India’s 2010 report, could be granted without prior permission of the Supreme Court.
January 21, 2026: Stay extended, concerns deepen
The matter came up again on Wednesday, January 21, 2026, before a Bench led by CJI Surya Kant, alongside Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi. The Court extended the December 29 interim order, reiterating that "illegal mining can lead to irreversible damage". The Bench clarified that the stay will remain until the proceedings reach a “logical finality”, preventing any administrative actions based on the flawed November framework.
The recent January hearing focussed on the composition of the new ‘High-Powered Expert Committee’ proposed in December. The CJI directed the Additional Solicitor General (‘ASG’) Aishwarya Bhati and Amicus Curiae K. Parameshwar to suggest names of eminent environmentalists, scientists, and forest experts within four weeks. The Court emphasised that this new committee would work under the "direct control and supervision" of the Supreme Court to ensure an impartial assessment.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appearing for an intervenor, raised a fundamental jurisprudential objection to the very exercise of "defining" nature. He argued, "Mountains cannot be defined. Himalayas cannot be defined, Aravallis cannot be defined, these are sub-tectonic strata... The problem is that [if] you start defining Aravallis, you will arrive at a problem". He requested a preliminary hearing on this legal position before the committee is constituted.
Meanwhile, the gap between judicial orders and ground reality was highlighted by Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran, representing some farmers from Rajasthan. He submitted that despite the Court's orders, illegal mining was continuing unabated, with activity observed as recently as January.
Responding to this, CJI Surya Kant issued a stern warning to the Rajasthan government. Addressing ASG K.M. Nataraj, the CJI stated, "There are people who are incorrigibly involved in illegal mining... illegal mining can lead to irreversible losses and the consequences will be very devastating". Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj on behalf of the Rajasthan government assured the Court that "no unauthorised mining shall be allowed".
The focus now shifts
The Supreme Court has now paved the way for a comprehensive re-evaluation of the Aravalli landscape. By putting the November 20 judgment in abeyance, the Court has effectively acknowledged that the rush to define the hills may have compromised their protection. The focus now shifts to the composition of the new expert panel. The Court has tasked this future committee with a heavy mandate: to determine if the 100-meter/500-meter criteria were scientifically flawed and to conduct a "multi-temporal evaluation" of the environmental impacts of the proposed definitions.
For now, the status quo prevails governed by the stricter FSI 2010 definitions as the judiciary attempts to harmonize the legal map with the geological reality of one of the world’s oldest mountain ranges. The matter is listed for further hearing four weeks after January 21, potentially in the last week of February 2026.
