Supreme Court To Constitute Expert Committee On Aravalli Definition; Mining Halt To Remain

The Supreme Court maintained the halt on licensed mining activities and posted the matter for constitution of an expert committee and framing of preliminary issues

Update: 2026-02-26 11:33 GMT

CJI Surya Kant-led Bench hears suo motu Aravalli definition case and directs constitution of expert committee while continuing mining status quo

The Supreme Court on Thursday continued hearing its suo motu proceedings on the definition and demarcation of the Aravalli Hills, directing that status quo on mining and related activities will remain in force until an expert committee is constituted and preliminary issues are addressed.

A three-judge Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi, took up the matter amid concerns over environmental protection and the impact of earlier directions on licensed mining operations.


Senior Advocate K Parameshwar, appearing as amicus curiae, submitted a report prepared in the case.

During the hearing, the Chief Justice requested the Union Ministry concerned to suggest a panel of domain experts along with their profiles.

Senior counsel appearing in the matter were also asked to propose names of eminent experts for consideration by the Court for constitution of a committee, as previously indicated.

In its order, the Court recorded that it was “conscious of the fact that all activities, especially mining, for which license/lease etc. and necessary permissions were granted have come to be at a halt.” However, it directed that “such status quo would have to be maintained for the time being till some of the preliminary issues are effectively answered after the constitution of the committee.”

The bench further ordered: “Post this matter for the purpose of constitution of the committee and framing of the issues arising in this case.”

The Court made it clear that the pause on mining and allied activities would continue until the expert body is formed and foundational questions relating to the definition and extent of the Aravalli ranges are examined in a phased manner.

During the proceedings, the Chief Justice referred to historical material on the geographical spread of the Aravalli formation. “If you see some really old history, even the Supreme Court of India building comes under Aravalli?” he remarked in open court.

Responding, Senior Advocate Parameshwar submitted that the range “starts from Rashtrapati Bhavan,” highlighting the expansive understanding of the Aravalli system in earlier records.

The suo motu case arises from concerns regarding conflicting definitions and demarcations of the Aravalli Hills, which have direct implications for environmental regulation, land use controls and mining permissions across affected regions.

Last month, the CJI had said the Court had “impressed upon” the amicus and all assisting counsel that a comprehensive note must be placed on record, clearly setting out the issues and questions that arise from the revised definition of the Aravalli Hills. The Court had also sought suggestions of names of eminent environmentalists, forest experts, scientists and other domain specialists so that an expert body can be constituted.
“Such a committee shall work under the direct control and supervision of this Court,
” the CJI had said. The bench had noted submissions that illegal mining was continuing at scattered locations, reiterating its concern that such activities could lead to irreversible environmental damage. K.M. Nataraj, appearing for Rajasthan, assured the Court that the State would ensure that no illegal mining takes place.
The Court had clarified that its interim directions issued on December 29, 2025, would continue to operate. Earlier, the bench had warned against filing fresh writ petitions on the issue, observing that it was aware of the reasons behind such filings, and had stressed the need for a scientific and expert-driven assessment of the Aravalli range.
In December 2025, the Court had 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.

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 Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi

Hearing Date: February 26, 2026

Tags:    

Similar News