Supreme Court: In a matter concerning the definition of Aravali Hills and Ranges and the need for its proper conservation in the States of Delhi, Haryana, Gujarat and Rajasthan, the three-judges bench of B.R. Gavai, CJI* and K. Vinod Chandran, and N.V. Anjaria, JJ., directed the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (‘MoEF&CC’) to prepare an Management Plan for Sustainable Mining (‘MPSM’) for the entire Aravali Range. Regarding the ban on mining is concerned, the Court opined that a complete ban on mining might lead to illegal mining activities, and thus, no such ban is imposed on the present legal mining activities that are already being undertaken in the Aravali Hills and Ranges. Further, the Court directed that till the MPSM is finalized, no new mining leases should be granted, and once finalized, the mining would be permitted as per the MPSM.
Background
Aravali Range and its importance:
The Aravali Range spanning across the States of Delhi, Haryana, Gujarat and Rajasthan, is one of the oldest geological features on Earth. Being one of the oldest fold mountains in India, it is rich in wildlife, flora and fauna, and significantly influences the climate and biodiversity across North India. The Aravali ecosystem acts as a “green barrier” and forms an effective “shield” against desertification by preventing the eastward spread of the Thar Desert towards the Indo-Gangetic plains, Haryana and western Uttar Pradesh.
Proceedings before the present Court:
The issues regarding Aravali Hills and Ranges are in two sets of proceedings. The first is in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, WP(C) No. 4677 of 1985 (‘M.C. Mehta case’) and the second one is in T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad v. Union of India, WP(C) No. 202 of 1995 (‘T.N. Godavarman case’). In T.N. Godavarman case (supra), an issue arose for consideration as to whether some of the mining activities were falling in the Aravali Hills or beyond.
Therefore, in that case, the Court requested the Central Empowered Committee (‘CEC’) to examine whether the classification of Aravali Hills and Ranges insofar as permitting mining is concerned, needs to be continued. The CEC submitted its report and on perusal of the said report, found that the issue regarding mining activities in the Aravali Hills and Ranges needs to be addressed jointly by the MoEF&CC as well as all the four States i.e., National Capital Territory of Delhi and States of Rajasthan, Haryana and Gujarat.
The Court vide order dated 9-5-2024, passed in M.C. Mehta case (supra), also noticed that one of the major issues regarding illegal mining was due to different definitions of “Aravali Hills/Ranges”, adopted by the different States. Therefore, the Court directed that a committee be constituted for providing a uniform definition of the Aravali Hills and Ranges (‘Committee’). Accordingly, the Committee submitted its report via the MoEF&CC on 3-10-2025.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court appreciated the commendable work done by the Committee, with the assistance of the technical committee. However, considering a matter regarding Saranda Wildlife Sanctuary (‘Saranda’) as part of the present proceedings, the Court noticed that the MoEF&CC had got a study done by Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education (‘ICFRE’). Based on the said study, the MPSM in Saranda was carried out. Thus, vide order dated 13-11-2025 in the present proceedings, this Court directed the Wildlife Sanctuary to be established insofar as the compartments which were identified as conservation areas/no mining zones. However, this Court explicitly excluded the compartments wherein the MPSM found that sustainable mining could be permitted.
The Court stated that it was not in dispute that the Aravali Hills and Ranges also exhibit similar ecological fragility, and it is also an area comprising significant biodiversity. Thus, taking deforestation, unsustainable grazing, illegal and excessive mining, and urban encroachment in consideration, the Court opined that it would also be in the best interest of the ecology and environment that a similar study, as Saranda, is also conducted for Aravali Hills and Ranges.
The Court stated that undoubtedly, the Committee has taken care by recommending prohibition of mining in core/inviolate areas except in cases of critical, strategic and atomic minerals. However, taking into consideration the geological importance of the Aravali mountain ranges, it would be appropriate if such a study is carried out.
Considering every aspects into consideration, especially the fact that the Aravali Hills and Ranges harbor rich biodiversity, with twenty-two wildlife sanctuaries, four tiger reserves, along with wetlands and aquifers that recharge river systems, it is appropriate that before permitting further sustainable mining activities, the same are preceded by preparation of an MPSM.
The Court stated that the MPSM will provide adequate data based on geo-referenced ecological assessment and identify the areas which have wildlife and other high eco-sensitive areas, required to be conserved. The MPSM will also provide data as to how sustainable mining is to be conducted. If such an MPSM, as was carried out for Saranda, is carried out for the Aravali Hills and Ranges, it can identify the areas where sustainable mining activities could be permitted.
Conclusion:
Thus, the Court directed the MoEF&CC to prepare an MPSM through ICFRE for the entire Aravali on the lines of the MPSM for Saranda. The MPSM must identify permissible areas for mining, ecologically sensitive, conservation-critical and restoration-priority areas within the Aravali, where mining shall be strictly prohibited or permitted only under exceptional and scientifically justified circumstances. The MPSM must incorporate a thorough analysis of cumulative environmental impacts and the ecological carrying capacity of the region and include detailed post-mining restoration and rehabilitation measures.
The Court stated that, if necessary, the MoEF&CC, could also consider preparing MPSM for each of the districts in the Aravali Hills and Ranges, ensuring that the continuity and integrity of the Aravali Hills and Ranges is maintained.
Regarding the ban on mining is concerned, the Court opined that a complete ban on mining might lead to illegal mining activities, and thus, no such ban is imposed on the present legal mining activities that are already being undertaken in the Aravali Hills and Ranges. The mining activities already being undertaken in Aravali Hills and Ranges would be carried out strictly in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee’s Report. The Court directed that till the MPSM is finalized by the MoEF&CC through ICFRE, no new mining leases should be granted, and once finalized, the mining would be permitted as per the MPSM.
[In Re: Issue relating to definition of Aravali Hills and Ranges, W.P.(C) No. 202 of 1995, decided on 20-11-2025]
*Judgment authored by- Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Amicus Curiae: K. Parameshwar, Sr. Advocate [A.C.] ; Mukunda,Adv. ; Kanti,Adv. ; Raji Gururaj,Adv. ; Shreenivas Patil,Adv. ; Veda Singh, Adv. ; Prasad Hegde, Adv. ; Sai Kaushal N., Adv. ; Harish N. Salve, Sr.Adv. (N.P.) ; A.D.N. Rao, Sr.Adv. (N.P.) ; Aprajita Singh, Sr.Adv. ; Siddharth Chowdhury, Adv.
For the Parties: Gaurav Kumar Bansal, Adv.; Aishwarya Bhati Ld, A.S.G. ; Ruchi Kohli, Sr. Adv. ; Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR ; Jagdish Chandra Solanki, Adv. ; Suhasini Sen, Adv. ; Gaurang Bhushan, Adv. ; Abhishek Atrey, AOR ; Ishita Bist, Adv. ; Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. ; Ruchi Kohli, Adv. ; Suhashini Sen, Adv. ; Shyam Gopal, Adv. ; Raghav Sharma, Adv. ; Raman Yadav, Adv. ; Sunanda Shukla, Adv. Dr. N. Visakamurthy, AOR.