Author: – Yash G. Mahalle, College: – M.P Law College
To the Point
In November 2025 the Supreme Court accepted a committee’s uniform definition of the Aravalli Hills and imposed an interim moratorium on new mining leases pending preparation of a landscape-level Mining and Post-Sustainable Mining (MPSM) plan — a move that both strengthened protection for core/inviolate zones and produced political and legal controversy over the 100-metre rule and scope of “Aravalli” so defined.
Use of legal jargon (concise legal summary)
Issue: Whether the uniform definition of “Aravalli Hills and Ranges” adopted by the Court and the Committee falls within the ambit of environmental protection obligations under the Environment (Protection) and Forest (Conservation) statutes, and whether the interim moratorium on new leases is tenable.
Relief granted (interim): Freeze on grant of new mining leases in areas falling within the Court-adopted definition; continued regulation and auditing of existing operations; requirement to prepare a landscape-wide MPSM.
Principles invoked: Doctrine of Sustainable Development; Precautionary Principle; Public Trust Doctrine; statutory powers under the Mines & Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act read with environmental/forest clearance regimes.
Contested construction: The Court’s reliance on an expert Committee’s technical definition (including a 100-metre height criterion) — challenged as ultra vires by critics who contend it narrows the protective ambit and permits exploitation of lower-lying but ecologically integral land.
The Proof (key evidentiary material & official records)
Supreme Court final order (20 Nov 2025) — records the Committee’s recommendations, accepts a uniform definition, and imposes an interim moratorium on new mining leases until the MPSM is prepared; directs stricter monitoring of existing mines. (Official PDF of the Court order / judgment).
Press Information Bureau (PIB) factsheet — Government summary of the Court order and the Committee recommendations; lists core/inviolate zones, a ban on mining in ecologically sensitive areas and an interim freeze on new leases. Useful for the Government’s public position on implementation.
NGT orders and actions (2024–2025) — series of NGT directions (including the Jan 22, 2025 order on illegal operations and kilns) showing ongoing judicial oversight and enforcement steps at the tribunal level. These show prior remedial steps and continued enforcement gaps.
Critical commentary and reporting — technical and civil-society critiques (DownToEarth, The Leaflet and other coverage) that analyse how the definition (esp. the 100-metre rule) may exclude large tracts from protection and the ecological consequences of exclusion. These serve as socio-legal evidence of controversy and public concern.
Recent public reaction — protests and political campaigns (reported Dec 2025) demanding stronger protection and questioning implementation, showing the controversy’s socio-political salience.
Abstract
This article analyses the 2024–2025 Aravalli controversy through the prism of the Supreme Court’s decision (20 Nov 2025) accepting a Committee’s technical definition, the Court’s interim moratorium on new mining leases, and subsequent NGT and administrative actions. It explains the legal issues (definition, scope of protection, interplay of central/state powers, and implementation), summarises the factual matrix and proof, lists key case law and orders, evaluates the legal and ecological consequences of the 100-metre rule, and concludes with practical recommendations and an FAQ for stakeholders (policy-makers, courts, civil society, industry).
Case Laws / Judicial Orders (recent and directly relevant)
Supreme Court — Issue relating to definition of Aravalli Hills (Order / Judgment dated 20 Nov 2025)
Accepted the Committee’s recommendations; directed preparation of a landscape-level MPSM; imposed interim moratorium on new mining leases; emphasised protection of core/inviolate zones and compliance with environmental clearances. (See full order.)
Supreme Court orders of 9 May 2024 (connected proceedings)
Earlier bench directives that led to constituting the technical committee to evolve a uniform definition — the factual and procedural backbone of the 2025 order.
National Green Tribunal — Orders (22 Jan 2025; subsequent hearings 2025)
Directed state pollution control boards and other agencies to act against illegal kilns and illegal mining operations; demonstrated tribunal’s supervisory role and directed periodic compliance reports. (NGT orders and status replies).
Relevant precedents on environmental protection and mining (doctrinal context)
Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1986) and cases invoking the Precautionary Principle/Public Trust Doctrine remain doctrinally relevant though the principal Aravalli dispute is driven by the recent technical definition adopted by the Court. (These older decisions provide the legal doctrines applied.)
Note: The 20 Nov 2025 Supreme Court order is the single most determinative authority for current policy and litigation strategy.
Conclusion (legal assessment + policy prescription)
Legal assessment: The Supreme Court’s acceptance of a Committee-led technical definition followed by an interim moratorium represents robust judicial intervention aimed at harmonising protection across states. However, reliance on a height-based or narrow morphological criterion (the 100-metre rule) risks creating regulatory gaps where ecologically important low-lying land remains unprotected. This selective delimitation raises separation-of-powers and implementation challenges between central recommendations, state mineral regimes and local land-use realities.
Policy prescription: (a) Prepare the MPSM with transparent, geospatially explicit maps and community consultation; (b) adopt a precautionary buffer approach rather than a strict height cut-off for ecological protection; (c) strengthen monitoring of existing operations and prosecute illegal mining; (d) align state mining rules with the Court’s landscape approach; (e) ensure time-bound ecological restoration and compensation measures.
FAQ (practical legal FAQs about the current Aravalli controversy)
Q1: What exactly did the Supreme Court order in November 2025?
A1: The Court accepted a Committee’s uniform definition of the Aravalli Hills, protected core/inviolate zones, ordered an interim freeze on new mining leases until a landscape-level MPSM is prepared, and required stricter oversight of existing operations. The final order (20 Nov 2025) and its annexures set out the Committee’s technical parameters and interim directions.
Q2: Does the moratorium stop all mining in the Aravallis?
A2: No — the moratorium is on new leases pending the MPSM. Existing mines must comply with statutory environmental and forest clearances and are subject to monitoring; illegal operations continue to be targetted by NGT and state authorities. The order also expressly prohibits mining in designated core/inviolate zones.
Q3: Why is the “100-metre” rule controversial?
A3: Critics argue a strict elevation threshold (landforms rising 100 m above local ground) can exclude ecologically important lower ridges, spurs and connected landscapes essential for groundwater recharge and biodiversity, thereby undermining holistic landscape protection. Proponents say a technical definition brings uniformity. The debate is factual-technical as much as legal.
Q4: Can states grant mining leases inside the defined Aravalli area?
A4: Not for new leases while the interim moratorium lasts. Post-MPSM, any leasing must comply with the MPSM, central environmental/forest clearances and Court/NGT directions. States remain responsible for enforcement under their mineral laws but must act within the Court’s framework.
Q5: What remedies are available to environmental groups or affected communities?
A5: Public Interest Litigations (PILs) in the Supreme Court/NGT, complaints to CPCB/SPCBs, seeking Writ relief under Articles 32/226 for public trust violations, and invoking statutory sanctions for illegal mining. Courts have previously entertained and continue to entertain such applications.
Q6: How should lawyers draft future petitions challenging leases?
A6: Focus on (i) whether the land falls within the Court-adopted definition/MPSM; (ii) statutory and environmental clearance violations; (iii) proof of illegal excavation or ecological damage; (iv) demand for immediate restoration and interim relief; and (v) seek urgent monitoring and a supervision mechanism (judicial or independent technical). Use geospatial evidence, satellite imagery and expert affidavits.
Annexure (Recommended short citations and documents to append to a formal article)
Supreme Court order — Issue relating to definition of Aravalli Hills (20 Nov 2025).
PIB Factsheet: “Aravalli Hills: Protecting Ecology and Ensuring Sustainable Development” (Dec 2025).
NGT orders (Jan 22, 2025 and subsequent compliance affidavits).
Critical articles: DownToEarth analysis on implications of uniform definition (Dec 2025).
Recent press reports of public protests and political reactions (Dec 2025).
