Supreme Court Puts Aravalli Mining Guidelines on Hold, Orders Fresh Review of Protected Areas
Supreme Court put earlier Aravalli mining recommendations in abeyance and directed a fresh, independent examination to clarify conservation boundaries and regulated mining norms
SC stayed implementation of Aravalli Hills mining recommendations and ordered a fresh review by a high-powered expert committee
The Supreme Court on Monday took up its suo motu proceedings on the long-pending and contentious question of what constitutes the Aravalli Hills, signalling a fresh round of scrutiny over the impact of its earlier directions on mining and conservation in the ecologically fragile range.
A special bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Augustine George Masih said that the expert committee report accepted earlier by the Court, along with certain judicial observations flowing from it, may have led to “misunderstood notions” that require clarification before any implementation.
The Court had earlier declined to impose a blanket ban on mining in the Aravalli region, observing that total prohibitions often end up encouraging illegal mining rather than curbing environmental damage.
Appearing for the Union government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that there had been “a lot of misconceptions” regarding the Court’s previous orders and the government’s role. He told the bench that an expert committee was constituted pursuant to the Court’s directions, a report was submitted, and the same was accepted by the Supreme Court.
However, the CJI noted that both the report and the resultant judicial observations appeared to have generated confusion on the ground.
“We feel that the report of the expert committee and some resultant observations made by this Court… which is generating misunderstood notions… will need some clarifications,” the Chief Justice said.
Before the implementation of either the expert report or the Court’s judgment, the bench said a fair and independent exercise was necessary to provide clear guidance on several unresolved issues impacting conservation and regulated mining in the Aravalli range.
The Court framed five specific questions requiring closer examination. These include whether restricting the definition of Aravalli Hills to a 500-metre area creates a “structural paradox” by narrowing conservation zones; whether the current framework has inadvertently broadened non-Aravalli areas where regulated mining can be permitted; and whether mining should be allowed in gaps between protected stretches, such as where two protected areas of 100 metres or more are separated by a gap of 700 metres.
The bench also flagged the larger concern of how ecological continuity of the Aravalli range can be preserved, and whether the discovery of any significant regulatory lacuna would warrant a deeper assessment to maintain the structural and ecological integrity of the hills.
In view of these concerns, the CJI said the Court proposes to constitute a high-powered expert committee comprising domain experts to analyse the earlier committee’s report afresh.
The Court issued notice to the Union government, the two concerned states, and environmentalist and amicus curiae K. Parameshwar, directing him to assist the Court. The Solicitor General and the Attorney General for India R. Venkataramani will also assist in the proceedings.
In a significant interim direction, the Court ordered that the recommendations of the expert committee and any findings of the Supreme Court flowing from them shall remain in abeyance until further orders.
The matter has been listed for further hearing on January 21, 2026.
Notably, in November, the Supreme Court had directed the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) to prepare a Management Plan for Sustainable Mining (MPSM) through Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education (ICFRE) for the entire Aravalis, i.e., understood as the continuous geological ridge extending from Gujarat to Delhi.
Advocate Hitendra Gandhi had also written to the CJI urging the Supreme Court to reconsider or clarify the definitional framework adopted for identifying the “Aravalli Hills and Ranges” in its recent order dated November 20, 2025, warning that a narrow, height-based criterion could unintentionally weaken environmental protection across North-West India. 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.
Case Title: In Re: Definition of Aravalli Hills and Ranges and Ancillary Issues
Bench: Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice AG Masih
Hearing Date: December 29, 2025