No New Mining Until Aravali Mapping And Ecological Assessment Are Completed: Supreme Court Directs Centre To Prepare Sustainable Mining Plan
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India Three-Judge Bench of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice N.V. Anjaria directed that no new mining activity may proceed in the Aravali Hills and Ranges until the Centre prepares a comprehensive Management Plan for Sustainable Mining through the ICFRE. The matter concerns the ecological fragility of the Aravali landscape across Delhi, Haryana, Rajasthan and Gujarat and the need for a uniform basis to regulate mining. The Court accepted the Committee’s definition of the Aravalis, mandated protection of core and inviolate zones, and held that future mining may be permitted only in areas identified as environmentally sustainable under the forthcoming plan, while permitting existing lawful operations to continue under strict safeguards.
The proceedings concern issues relating to the definition of the Aravali Hills and Ranges and the regulation of mining activities across the States of Delhi, Haryana, Rajasthan and Gujarat. The matter arose within two long-standing environmental proceedings before the Supreme Court, including questions raised about whether certain mining operations fell within the Aravali region. During a hearing in January 2024, concerns were expressed regarding the absence of a uniform definition of the Aravali Hills and Ranges and the need to determine whether specific mining activities were situated inside or outside these areas. The Court requested the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) to examine whether the prevailing classifications required revision and to consult geological experts.
The CEC submitted its report in March 2024, outlining district-wise mining conditions in Rajasthan and recommending measures such as mapping of the entire Aravali range, suspension of mining in specific areas, and restrictions in zones considered environmentally sensitive. The report also identified categories of land where mining should not be permitted and proposed regulatory mechanisms for existing legal mining.
In May 2024, the Court noted that multiple States were using different definitions of the Aravalis and constituted a high-level committee comprising officials from the Environment Ministry, State Forest Departments, the Forest Survey of India, the Geological Survey of India and the CEC. The committee was directed to prepare a uniform definition of the Aravali Hills and Ranges. The Court also recorded submissions referencing previous reports of the Forest Survey of India, concerns raised by the Amicus Curiae about illegal mining, and the States’ responses regarding the socioeconomic stakes involved.
After being granted additional time, the committee submitted its report in October 2025. It recommended an operational definition of the Aravali Hills and Ranges for mining-related purposes, based on landform elevation, contour mapping and proximity between hill formations. The committee also proposed identification of core or inviolate areas, regulation of ongoing mining operations, and preparation of detailed environmental assessments for determining zones suitable for sustainable mining.
The Court recorded the ecological significance of the Aravali system, noting that scientific assessments establish that the range “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.” It stated that obligations under the UNCCD require “a uniform and streamlined approach… towards the preservation and restoration of the Aravali ecosystem including regulation of exploitation of the Aravali Hills in a scientific and sustainable manner, guided by the precautionary principle.”
While reviewing earlier proceedings, the Court observed that during a prior hearing an issue arose “as to whether some of the mining activities were falling in the Aravali Hills or beyond it.” It recorded that the Amicus Curiae suggested that the CEC examine whether mining within these regions was permissible and that the Committee of experts be consulted. The Court further noted that differing definitions among States created regulatory uncertainty, remarking that “one of the major issues with regard to the illegal mining was on account of different definitions of ‘Aravali Hills/Ranges’, as adopted by the different States.”
The Court considered submissions relating to the definitions proposed by expert bodies. It recorded the Amicus’ view that “there should have been no reason for the Committee to not accept the definition as proposed by the FSI.” In contrast, it noted the Additional Solicitor General’s submission that the Committee’s version, if adopted, “would include a larger area… as part of the Aravali Hills and Ranges.”
Regarding environmental fragility, the Court observed that the Aravalis “exhibit similar ecological fragility” to other sensitive regions previously examined and that the mountain range faces “escalating degradation pressures.” The Court found that permitting further mining without scientific scrutiny “may not be in the interest of ecology and environment if further mining activities are permitted to be carried out without a body of experts, such as ICFRE, examining the issue of protection of the conservation areas.” It stated that “The MPSM will provide adequate data on the basis of geo-referenced ecological assessment and identify the areas which have wildlife and other high eco-sensitive areas, which are required to be conserved. The MPSM will also provide data as to how sustainable mining is to be conducted.”
The Court also formally adopted the Committee’s operational definition of Aravali Hills and Aravali Ranges, recording the definitions exactly as stated in the report. It noted:
“Aravali Hills: Any landform located in the Aravali districts, having an elevation of 100 metres or more from the local relief… shall be deemed to constitute part of the Aravali Hills.”
“Aravali Range: Two or more Aravali Hills… located within the proximity of 500m from each other… forms Aravali Range.”
Finally, the Court noted earlier judicial experience that a total prohibition on mining could lead to undesirable outcomes, observing that “a total ban on mining is not conducive even to the interest of the environment… as it gives scope for illegal mining.”
The Court directed: “We accept the recommendations made by the Committee with regard to the definition of Aravali Hills and Ranges given by MoEF&CC. We further accept the recommendations with regard to the prohibition of mining in core/inviolate areas with exception as carved out in paragraph 7.3.1 of the Committee’s Report. We also accept the recommendations for sustainable mining in Aravali Hills and Ranges and the steps to be taken for preventing illegal mining in Aravali Hills and Ranges.”
“We, however, direct the MoEF&CC to prepare a MPSM through ICFRE for the entire Aravalis, i.e., understood as the continuous geological ridge extending from Gujarat to Delhi on the lines of the MPSM for Saranda and the MPSM must: a. Identify permissible areas for mining, ecologically sensitive, conservation-critical and restoration-priority areas within the Aravali landscape where mining shall be strictly prohibited or permitted only under exceptional and scientifically justified circumstances; b. Incorporate a thorough analysis of cumulative environmental impacts and the ecological carrying capacity of the region; and c. Include detailed post-mining restoration and rehabilitation measures.”
“We further direct that till the MPSM is finalised by the MoEF&CC through ICFRE, no new mining leases should be granted. We further direct that upon the MPSM being finalised by MoEF&CC in consultation with the ICFRE, mining would be permitted as per the MPSM only in those areas wherein sustainable mining could be permitted.”
“In the meantime, the mining activities in the mines which are already in operation would be continued in strict compliance with the recommendations made by the Committee in paragraph 8 of its Report.”
The Court placed on record its appreciation for Mr. K. Parameshwar, learned Amicus Curiae, noting his sustained assistance over three years in matters concerning protection and conservation of environment, wildlife and ecology. It also recorded its appreciation for the assistance of Mr. M.V. Mukunda, Ms. Kanti, Ms. Raji Gururaj and Mr. Shreenivas Patil. Further acknowledgment was extended to Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Additional Solicitor General of India, for her role in representing the MoEF&CC, and to Mr. Balbir Singh, Senior Counsel for the State of Haryana, and Mr. K.M. Nataraj, Additional Solicitor General of India for the State of Rajasthan.
Case Title: In Re: Issue Relating to Definition of Aravali Hills and Ranges
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1338
Case Number: I.A. No.105701 of 2024 in Writ Petition (C) No.202 of 1995
Bench: Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, Justice N.V. Anjaria
