Supreme Court to form expert panel to examine definition of Aravalli hills

The Supreme Court has invited suggestions to constitute an expert committee under its supervision to re-examine the definition of the Aravalli hills and address environmental concerns linked to mining

The Supreme Court on Wednesday invited suggestions on the composition of a new expert committee it proposes to set up to examine the definition of the Aravalli hills and the environmental issues associated with mining in the region. The court stated that the proposed panel would operate under its direct supervision and control.

 

Who will suggest names for the proposed expert committee? 

A Bench led by Chief Justice of India Justice Surya Kant and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi asked the amicus curiae and counsel appearing for the Centre and states to suggest names of eminent environmentalists and forest experts for inclusion in the committee. The Bench directed amicus curiae K Parameshwar, Additional Solicitors General Aishwarya Bhati and KM Nataraj, along with other assisting lawyers, to place a comprehensive note identifying the issues that would arise for consideration and proposing suitable experts. The court said the expert body would assist it on all aspects of the dispute.

 

Why did the Supreme Court decide to revisit the Aravalli definition? 

The move follows the court’s decision on December 29, 2025, to recall and stay its own November 20 judgment that had endorsed a restrictive definition of the Aravalli hills.

 

In that earlier ruling, a Bench headed by then Chief Justice BR Gavai, along with Justices K Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria, had accepted an expert panel’s recommendations on defining the Aravallis and on restricting mining in core or inviolate areas. The judgment had held that any landform in the Aravalli districts with an elevation of 100 metres or more from the local relief would qualify as an Aravalli hill, and that the Aravalli Range would comprise two or more such hills located within 500 metres of each other.

 

What concerns were raised about the earlier ruling? 

While accepting this definition, the court had declined to impose a blanket ban on mining, warning that a complete prohibition could fuel illegal mining and criminal activity. Reports suggesting that the definition would exclude over 90 per cent of the Aravallis triggered widespread criticism, prompting the court to take up the issue suo motu and recall the ruling.

 

What arguments were raised during Wednesday’s hearing? 

At Wednesday’s hearing, senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, appearing for farmers from Rajasthan, opposed the grant of certain mining leases and urged that mining activity be halted.

 

Responding, Chief Justice Kant said illegal mining was an “ex facie crime” and assured that action would be taken if specific instances were brought to the court’s notice, but cautioned against filing fresh writ petitions that could distract from the core issues.

 

What assurances did the Centre give the court? 

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for an intervenor, argued that mountain ranges cannot be subjected to rigid definitions, pointing to evolving geological formations, and sought a brief preliminary hearing on the issue. Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj assured the Bench that no illegal mining would be permitted and submitted that any such activity occurring in scattered pockets would be dealt with.

 

Recording the assurance, the court directed that its interim directions issued on December 29, 2025, would continue to operate and reiterated its request for names to be suggested for the proposed expert committee.