Advocate Urges CJI to Revisit Supreme Court’s Aravalli Definition, Warns ‘100-Metre Test’ May Dilute Protection

In a detailed representation addressed to the Chief Justice of India, Gandhi described the Supreme Court’s November 20 order in In Re: Issue Relating to Definition of Aravali Hills and Ranges as a significant and welcome step in recognising the Aravalli system as an ecologically critical natural shield.

He praised the Court’s directions to prepare a comprehensive Management Plan for Sustainable Mining through the Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education (ICFRE), its emphasis on cumulative impact and carrying capacity, and the interim prohibition on granting new mining leases.

However, Gandhi raised concern over the operational definition adopted in the order, under which landforms with a “local relief” of 100 metres or more above their immediate surroundings are treated as the primary criterion for identifying Aravalli hills and ranges.

According to him, this approach risks excluding large, ecologically integral parts of the Aravalli landscape that may not meet the numerical height threshold but remain functionally critical.

The representation emphasised that the Aravallis are an ancient and highly eroded ridge system, where ecological value is not confined to prominent peaks. Gandhi argued that low-relief ridges, outcrops, slopes, corridors and recharge-bearing terrains play a vital role in groundwater recharge, dust and desertification buffering, biodiversity connectivity, microclimate moderation and the overall ecological resilience of the Delhi–NCR region.

He cautioned that environmental protection in India is often triggered by legal classification and land records. A narrowly framed definition, he said, could create “grey zones” where enforcement becomes uncertain, enabling land-use conversion, mining and construction in areas that are scientifically part of the Aravalli system. Such outcomes, he warned, may be irreversible.

Linking the issue to public health, the advocate highlighted the severe and recurring air quality crisis in the Delhi–NCR airshed. He noted that ridge forests and connected scrub landscapes of the Aravallis act as natural barriers against dust movement and help suppress particulate resuspension. Excluding ridge-connected tracts from protection could aggravate air pollution, deepen groundwater stress, intensify heat extremes, fragment wildlife corridors and heighten climate vulnerability.

Gandhi grounded his submissions in constitutional principles, citing Article 21’s guarantee of the right to a healthy environment, along with Articles 48A and 51A(g), which impose duties on the State and citizens to protect the environment. He also invoked established principles of environmental jurisprudence, including the precautionary principle, public trust doctrine, sustainable development and inter-generational equity, arguing that where definitions risk irreversible ecological harm, constitutional institutions must err on the side of protection.

The representation further suggested that the current approach may raise concerns under Article 14, as ecologically similar ridge segments could be treated differently solely due to variations in local relief, despite comparable hydrological and ecological functions.

Seeking a limited but consequential intervention, the advocate requested that the Chief Justice consider placing the matter before an appropriate Bench for clarification or modification. He urged the Court to refine the definition by adopting a multi-criteria framework that accounts for geomorphology, hydrology, ecology and connectivity, rather than relying solely on height.

Among other suggestions, Gandhi called for public auditability of datasets and geo-referenced maps used to identify Aravalli areas, continuation of protection for ecologically connected landscapes pending finalisation of the management plan, and the incorporation of binding constraints on carrying capacity and “no-go” zones in the mining framework.

He concluded by stating that the representation was made purely in public interest, with respect for judicial authority, and aimed only at ensuring that the Court’s protective intent for the Aravallis remains meaningful and enforceable on the ground.