Justice for Aravalli

 

Justice for Aravalli

 

Recently Supreme Court order on Aravalli has become subject  to mischievous  and selective interpretation .Seven directions have been passed by the Apex Court vide order 20 November 2025. First deals with the uniform definition of Aravalli Hills, and Ranges as submitted by a committee formed in furtherance of the order 9 May 2024 of the Apex Court to the effect that  Aravalli Hills: Any landform with an elevation of 100 meters or more above the surrounding terrain and Aravalli Range: If two or more such hills are within a 500-meter radius, they will be considered part of the same hill range.

 Second covers the prohibition  of mining as per the  special committee report. Third cover steps to be taken for preventing illegal mining in Aravalli Hills and ranges .Fourth direction talks about  Management Plan for Sustainable Mining(MPSM).Interestingly MPSM has been directed for Saranda Wildlife Sanctuary by order dated 13 November 2025 .To avoid any type of ambiguity, the scope of MPSM has been defined by the court. MPSM must  identify permissible areas for mining, ecologically ,sensitive, conservation-critical and restoration priority areas within the Aravalli landscape where mining shall be strictly prohibited or permitted only under exceptional and scientifically justified circumstances. MPSM shall  incorporate a thorough analysis of  cumulative environmental impacts and the ecological carrying capacity of the region and include detailed post-mining restoration and rehabilitation measures.Fifth direction underlines  total prohibition of new mining blisses till MPSM is finalized. Sixth direction, categorically states  that upon the MPSM being finalized by Ministry of Environment  Forest and Climatic  Change in consultation With Indian Council of  Forestry Research and Education (ICFRE) mining would be permissible only where sustainability standards are fulfilled. Last direction relates to existing mining activities to be permitted as per recommendation of the special committee report.

 

There are legitimate concerns of the environment activists to the effect  that new definition of Aravalli Hills and Ranges will escalate deforestation and desertification of the affected region of Rajasthan, Haryana Delhi, NCR and North part of India. This needs to be duly answered by the stakeholders .There was no legal question before the court to be dealt with. Apex Court had two options in the terms of the report of Forest Survey of India and the  committee. The committee adopted the Richard Murphy landform classification  to determine the height of Aravalli Hills and Ranges . While they Forest Survey of India (FSI) report submitted on 19 Feb 2010  includes, inter alia, slope  of more than three degree for the determination of the height of the Aravallis hills and ranges.

 

Amicus Curiae  supported FSI report. Whereas Additional Solicitor General of Government of India opposed  FSI report on the ground that a large area is excluded from Aravalli Hills and ranges.On the other hand  the report of the committee, if approved, would include larger area in the definition of Aravalli Hills and Ranges.

The Apex Court appreciated  the work of the committee but  expressed that MPSM be undertaken on the lines of Saranda.  The Writ petition, being a continuous mandamus, enjoys regular monitoring by the Apex Court. The order of  20th November 2025 is an order which can be subject to modification in future, if need arises. All the  claims related to the environment are dealt as per the Public Trust doctrine. Concerns of environmental activist need to be put at rest by the Apex Court. Only completion of MPSM  shall disclose the factual status of the claims made by FSI parameters and impact of the definition suggested by expert Committee. Which definition of the height of the Aravalli hills and  ranges  shall protect the Aravalli only data and statistics shall reveal which can be assessed only after the survey and mapping . Thereupon  the court shall adjudicate and do justice to Aravalli. Be that it may, new  mining is totally prohibited till completion of MPSM  . The ongoing debate has eclipsed the another issue of failure of enforcement agencies entrusted with the task of preventing illegal mining.   

Basic principle of the legal jurisprudence that justice should not only be done but should seen to have been done is missing in the adjudication on Aravalli.This basic  legal  approach for  Aravalli case would have inspired confidence into the stakeholders. Also, the growing trend of retired judges making remarks after the pronouncement  of the judgment, like the  Aravalli case, or Ayodhya case demands highest level of  judicial restrain and can not be appreciated. It is the settled principle that the author of the judgments must become invisible after pronouncement of the judgment.

Separation of powers  and judicial review are the part of the basic structure doctrine of Constitution of India.Though determination of the definition of height of the Arrival  hills and ranges is by the expert committee but the exercise of the approval  by the court in the Aravalli case  has made adjudication legislative in character. Hence, the protest against the definition and parameters of height of Aravalli  Hills and Ranges  amounts to losing of the faith in the institution of judiciary itself. Last but not the least, proper justification, legal reasoning, scientific grounds and relevant parameters are found missing to support the Richard Murphy landform classification . Drafting of the judgment of the Public Interest demand detailed order. Better drafting of the order could have  avoided the present social unrest, manufactured confusion  and baseless allegations.

Though the impugned order  dated 9 Nov 2025 has been put in abeyance by the Apex Court on 29 Dec 2025  yet debate , inter alia, continues on the issues of  acceptable definition of Aravalli Hills and Ranges in terms of geological definition , statutory  definition , sustainable mining ,possibility of  inclusion of non Aravalli area ,mapping and survey of the area, MPSM , conflicting claims of environment and development and  report of the newly formed high powered panel.

 

 

Surya Pratap Singh Rajawat

Advocate

Rajasthan High Court Jaipur