Authors: Mr Prakhar Pandey, Assistant Professor (Clinical) at O P Jindal Global University; and Ms Sampada Nayak, Assistant Professor at O P Jindal Global University

The Supreme Court of India (SC) in a judgment dated 20th November 2025 accepted a new definition of the ‘Aravalli Hills and Ranges’. This decision has prompted serious concerns about the definition’s limitations and caused quite a stir among different groups of people. SC needed to revisit the definition primarily because of two reasons. First, due to two different pending litigations (M.C Mehta v Union of India & Others and T.N Godavarman Thirumalpad v Union of India & Others) questioning the continuation of mining in the Aravalli; and second, because of no uniformity in the definition of ‘hills’ and ‘ranges’ among the states where the Aravalli is located.

During the proceedings, both the state and the court acknowledged that the definitional inconsistency is one of the reasons that have led to decades of unchecked urbanization, systematic deforestation, and intensive resource extraction in Aravalli and have exerted immense strain upon this inherently fragile ecosystem.

Consequently, a committee was formed by SC order dated 09^th May 2024, which submitted its report on 03^rd October 2025. It defined ‘Aravalli Hills’ as those that are at an elevation of 100 mts or more from the ground level, which means any landform that rises 100 mts when measured from the lowest contour line and would include the entire hill, slope, and any other associated feature. ‘Aravalli Ranges’ were defined as two such hills located within a proximity of 500m from each other, measured from the lowest outermost contour line and would include all landforms, hillocks, and slopes in between.

The acceptance of these definitions by the SC led to a huge uproar from experts, activists and public, particularly highlighting the risks that arise from dilution of existing protections. A significant concern has been that the limiting definitions can potentially open up ecologically vital areas, low ridges, and other landforms for mining and development projects. Eventually, the court decided to stay its directions on 29^th December 2025 until these issues reach a state of logical finality. Until then, no administrative or ecological actions shall be taken, and no permissions will be granted for mining, whether new or for renewal of old leases.

Aravalli, for centuries, has been understood as a continuous mountain system and has been customarily used by local & pastoral communities and other non-human species for sustenance, agriculture, grazing, shelter etc. It is a biodiversity hotspot that has been naturally providing vital ecosystem functions such as groundwater recharge, regulating temperature, prevention of desertification, among others. The Aravalli hold important ecological features like forests, gauchars (grazing lands), traditional water bodies like johads (ponds) and baolis which have a deep multifaceted connection with the communities inhabiting them. It is not just a land rich in deep-seated minerals. It holds much more than what definitions, maps, laws, and logic can capture. It is an interdependent ecological system, a land of its people and biodiversity.

We believe a critical examination of this legal conundrum is an opportunity to appreciate and highlight the importance of Aravalli as common and shared ecological landscape. The discourse around Aravalli as commons has been largely absent in the legislature and judiciary, as well as among states responsible for its local and transboundary governance. The legal and policy frameworks that do offer protection to some parts of this ecosystem as common are sporadic or absent. Commons like gauchar, open or inland grasslands, village ponds etc. are protected by different states, district, municipality, block or village level institutions.

In Haryana, the Aravalli hills have layered legal protections under the Punjab Land Preservation Act (PLPA), 1900, Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act (PVCLRA), 1961, and Forest Conservation Act (FCA), 1980 and several rulings from the NGT and SC. For instance, Section 4 of PLPA puts a restriction on tree felling, development and clearing of land in specially notified Aravalli regions. This protection under PLPA has been further strengthened by the Supreme Court ruling in the Kant Enclave matter which deemed these notified lands as forests protected under FCA. However, majority of these PLPA notifications have lapsed with no action from the Haryana government to renew them and are currently only protected through SC orders. On the other hand, in case of village commons, PVCLRA provides additional protection by governing community lands (shamlat deh) including pastures, ponds, etc. Rajasthan and Gujarat, however, do not have a dedicated law for protection of commons like Punjab and Haryana do. Nonetheless, the permanent pastures or gauchar once recorded in revenue department records grazing land becomes the responsibility of the district administrations as well as village panchayat.

Delhi, which is often missing from these discussions, also has spurs of Aravalli divided into Northern, Central, South Central and Southern Ridge Forests. While some of these areas, like Sanjay Van, are protected by the Forest Department, other forest commons may not be similarly placed. Even generally, other common lands in Delhi, that were protected as ‘gaon sabha’ land under the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 and were used for digging wells, collecting forest produce or as burial grounds have all been handed over to the revenue department since the 1990s.

Despite the state-specific laws mentioned above and multiple institutional safeguards, protection of commons remains inadequate. One of the biggest threats to commons is encroachment through different routes by different entities. Encroachment by diversion of commons after categorizing them as ‘wasteland’ for mining/ real estate or encroachment for illegal mining continues to deplete the commons.

Aravalli, although being a common resource, are also mined for minor minerals such as stone, sand, quartzite, limestone etc. Mining of these minerals are already governed by less stringent regulatory mechanisms and would have faced further weakening of this regulatory oversight in the absence of the stay order. This elevation- and proximity-based demarcation opens up areas that do not fit these narrow criteria but are an integral part of the continuous ecosystem. Furthermore, it creates doorways for renewal of the mining contracts and allowing real estate development in the same areas that have been exploited under such pressures.

It is important to note that the directions given by the SC based on the committee’s recommendations add no real strength to the already existing environmental regulations. For instance, the recommendation on prohibition of mining in core/ inviolate areas (as per 7.4 of the Report) is already part of the current approval regime (through CTE/ CTO/ EC/ FC permissions). One of the areas where mining is prohibited, for example, is 500m from Ramsar sites and wetlands under the Wetland (Conservation & Management) Rule of 2017. However, Rule 4 of the Wetland Rules 2017 already has such prohibition. So, in effect, this committee recommendation creates no additional protection or protection specific to the Aravalli. This leaves the community ponds, water bodies within sacred groves or any water ecosystem notified under the Wetland Rules completely vulnerable to activities like mining.

Further, the court has also granted an exception to allow mining of critical, strategic, and atomic minerals as mentioned in para 7.3.1 of the committee report. The opportunities for mining these minerals are already being explored in Rajasthan and are clearly indicative of how this exemption will manifest in the future.

All of this makes one wonder, what is the real intention behind granting such exceptions? Whether the new definition and recommendations are truly attempting to embed uniformity and scientific criteria in regulation? Or is it just to ensure that the state’s flexibility and discretion to allow mining remains intact?

In the absence of adequate legal frameworks that protect commons, the only safeguards that remain are through reliance on environmental regulations and judicial decisions such as Jagpal Singh v State of Punjab (2011). It is unfortunate, however, that the effectiveness of directions given in Jagpal asking the states to remove encroachments form common lands have also been limited and misused in practice, thus leaving commons to stand in conflict with conservation and revenue administration frameworks. The Aravalli judgment of 20^th November 2025 attempted to strengthen protections by enabling effective enforcement against violations as mentioned in para (viii) of the recommendations, however, that has also been stayed for now. The current regulatory frameworks under Air/ Water Act, EPA, and other mining laws already warrant actions such as closure/ termination of license/ cancellation of EC, however, they rarely get enforced and are mostly limited to compounding through fines, penalties etc.

We feel that one of the most important questions raised by the Amicus i.e. whether continuation of the mining activities in Aravalli Hills and Ranges was in the larger public interest or not’, was not sufficiently addressed in the proceedings, however, remains to be the most crucial question in this debate for the recognition and protection of Aravalli as commons. Even the note submitted by Additional Solicitor General recognizes that the cumulative impacts of escalating degradation pressures and the widespread ecosystem damage to Aravalli affects biodiversity, water security, climate resilience, and the livelihoods of communities dependent on it.

Yet, instead of delving more deeply into what real on-ground impacts it may have on areas that do not have the needed protection and the communities that lack agency and autonomy, the court proceedings have reduced this ecological system’s future protection to a mere cartographic exercise.