Written By Ms. Ridhima (B.A LLB hons.) LinkedIn

Abstract

The Aravalli Hills form one of the oldest mountain ranges in the world and serve as a critical ecological barrier in northern India in areas such as Gujarat, Rajasthan, Haryana and Delhi. Aravalli Hills regulates climate, conserves biodiversity, prevents desertification, maintains groundwater levels and many more. Despite their environmental significance, the Aravalli range has been subjected to extensive degradation due to rapid urbanisation, unregulated industrial expansion, and illegal mining activities. These human caused pressures have resulted in serious environmental consequences, raising concerns regarding ecological sustainability and environmental governance.

In this background, the present research paper undertakes a detailed analysis of the Aravalli Hills judgment, with specific emphasis on the role of the judiciary in environmental protection. The study seeks to examine the key legal issues raised before the courts, including the conflict between developmental activities and environmental conservation, the enforcement of environmental laws, and the protection of ecologically sensitive areas. It further analyses the judicial reasoning adopted in the judgment, highlighting how constitutional provisions, statutory frameworks, and established principles of environmental law were interpreted and applied.

This paper focuses on key environmental law principles such as sustainable development, the precautionary principle, and the public trust doctrine that influenced the court’s decision. By analysing judicial precedents and statutory provisions, the research evaluates how these principles were used to justify judicial intervention and impose restrictions on environmentally harmful activities. The study adopts a doctrinal research methodology and relies on primary sources such as judicial decisions and legislation, along with secondary sources including academic writings, reports, and policy documents.

The paper concludes that the Aravalli Hills judgment constitutes a landmark development in Indian environmental jurisprudence. It demonstrates the proactive and activist role of courts, reflecting judicial activism and interventionist approach in safeguarding natural resources and reinforces the recognition of environmental protection as an integral part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The judgment strengthens the legal framework for conservation and highlights the responsibility of both the state and society to protect resources for current and future generations.

Introduction

Aravalli is a sanskrit word meaning ‘line of peaks’. The Aravalli Hills are one of the oldest fold mountains in India, formed during separation of the Indian Plate from Eurasian Plate. It is rich in wildlife, flora and fauna, and plays a significant role in regulating the climate and maintaining biodiversity across North India. The range stretches across the northwestern states, including Gujarat, Rajasthan, Haryana, and the National Capital Territory of Delhi, with its highest peak being Guru Shikhar at Mount Abu in Rajasthan, standing 1,722 meters above sea level.

In ancient times, Aravalli were extremely high but millions of years of weathering have gradually worn them down. Unlike the Himalayas, young fold mountains are still growing but Aravalli  have stopped growing higher due to the cessation of upward thrust caused by the tectonic plates in the Earth’s crust below them. Despite their reduced height, the Aravalli range continues to be ecologically important, providing habitat for various multiple species, influencing regional climate patterns, and contributing to soil and water conservation.

As an important geological barrier, the Aravalli Hills prevent the eastward spread of the Thar Desert into the Indo-Gangetic plains, Haryana and western Uttar Pradesh therefore acts as “green barrier”, regulates climate/rainfall of North India, recharges groundwater, improves air quality in Delhi NCR therefore reffered as “green lungs”. Aravalli hills are home to wildlife sanctuaries, tiger reserves, wetlands and forests and also support rivers like Chambal, Sabarmati, Luni, Mahi and Banas and also prevents land degradation. But The Aravalli Hills have faced increasing threats from urbanisation, mining, and industrial expansion have raised serious environmental and legal concerns, highlighting the need for judicial intervention to protect this fragile ecosystem. This provides the foundation for analysing the landmark Aravalli Hills judgment and the proactive role of the judiciary in environmental protection.

History and legal background

The case T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India began in 1995. This is one of the most important environmental cases in Indian history. T.N Godavarman, an environmental activist who approached the Supreme Court to protect forests in India. He approached court because forests across India were being destroyed , used illegally for mining and construction, not properly protected by state governments.

Over time, court noticed that Aravalli hills are forest like areas ,they are being destroyed by illegal mining. Some states tried to label parts of the Aravalli range as ‘non-forest’ to allow mining, causing serious ecological damage. As a result, the protection of the Aravalli Hills became an integral part of the Godavarman litigation.

During 2000s , entire hills of Aravalli were cut , heavy mining in Haryana, Rajasthan and Delhi increased, gradually groundwater started disappearing, forest cover reduced. Despite earlier Supreme Court orders, mining continued illegally. Simultaneously the case of M.C Mehta v. Union of India dealing with pollution and environmental degradation in the National Capital Region, was ongoing. Issues concerning Aravalli mining were discussed in both cases, resulting in an overlap of environmental concerns and judicial attention.

Another important reason behind this case is United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD). As a signatory India had a responsibility to prevent desertification, and the destruction of the Aravalli Hills could have led to non-compliance with these commitments.

The case resulted from illegal mining, unclear regulations, and inconsistent definitions of ‘forest’ and the Aravalli Hills by state authorities. The Supreme Court intervened to ensure environmental protection and safeguard the interests of present and future generations.

Main legal issues

1. What constitutes the correct legal definition of “Aravalli Hills and Ranges” for the purpose of mining regulation?

2. Should mining be permitted in the Aravalli Hills, and if so, under what conditions and in which areas?

Role of the Central Empowered Committee (CEC)

CEC is an expert body appointed by Supreme Court to assist in matters related to forests and environmental protection[3]. In the context of the Aravalli Hills, the CEC was tasked with conducting a detailed study of illegal mining and its impact on the fragile ecosystem, in consultation with environmental and geological experts.

Findings of the CEC

The CEC found the Aravalli ecosystem extremely fragile—small disturbances can cause significant damage, and recovery is difficult once it occurs. 1. Environmental Damage:

The hills controls desert spread , recharges groundwater , supports wildlife and forests and also maintains climate and rainfall balance. The CEC emphasised that the destruction of the Aravalli range would have severe consequences for the environment of North India.

 2. Widespread Illegal mining

CEC found that illegal mining as resulted in reduction of forests, destruction of hills and hill slopes, depletion of groundwater , pollution which led to health issues , damage od wildlife habitats. In many places ,entire hills are cut and flattened.

CEC observed that mining was happening without permissions, many mines exceeded allowed production limits, mining was done outside leased areas, hidden and night time mining was common. CEC said that the main reason behind illegal mining was weak monitoring and corruption. CEC observed that there was no real time monitoring of mining , manual record keeping encouraged illegal mining. CEC recommended that Online Integrated Lease Management System (ILMS) for computerized and network-based management of mineral production and dispatch, collection of royalty, issue of permit and generation and submission of online reports involving mining leases and crusher operations should be applied , there should be digital tracking of mineral transport and also real time crushers and mines.

3. Sustainable mining

The CEC did not recommend a complete ban on mining, recognising that it provides employment to thousands and that a total ban could lead to illegal mining and the emergence of mafias. CEC emphasized that mining should be scientific, limited and controlled. Fresh mining leases should be stopped until further studies are done, violaters must be immediately shut down, sustainable approach should be there.

4. Abandoned mines

The CEC noted the existence of thousands of legal and illegal abandoned mines which causes accidents, soil erosion, water contamination and many other problems. CEC recommended that all abandoned mines should be identified, and also the National CAMPA[1] may be directed to release funds required for mapping purpose. The committee also suggested that the National CAMPA release funds for this purpose and that the Forest Survey of India complete geo-tagged mapping of the Aravalli Hills within six months, following the norms used in the State of Rajasthan.

Committees formed by Supreme Court In order to effectively address the complex environmental and administrative issues concerning the Aravalli Hills, the Supreme Court of India constituted several high-level committees and expert bodies. The formation of these committees was necessary due to the absence of a uniform definition of the “Aravalli Hills and Ranges” and the lack of coordinated action among the states.

The committees and authorities involved included:

1. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) – responsible for framing environmental policies, issuing notifications, and coordinating conservation efforts at the national level.
2. Forest Departments of the States of Gujarat, Rajasthan, Haryana, and Delhi – tasked with providing state-level data, implementing court directions, and monitoring forest and mining activities.
3. Forest Survey of India (FSI) – assigned the responsibility of mapping forest areas, conducting geo-tagging, and identifying forest-like regions within the Aravalli range.
4. Geological Survey of India (GSI) – involved in providing scientific and geological inputs regarding the structure, extent, and vulnerability of the Aravalli Hills.
5. Central Empowered Committee (CEC) – acted as the primary monitoring and advisory body, submitting detailed reports on illegal mining, environmental damage, and compliance with court orders.

The primary objective of constituting these committees was to arrive at a uniform and scientifically sound definition of the “Aravalli Hills and Ranges”. This was essential to prevent states from exploiting ambiguities in classification to permit mining activities in ecologically sensitive areas. These committees helped the Supreme Court make informed decisions to protect the Aravalli ecosystem and ensure consistent environmental governance.Bottom of Form

Definition of Aravalli Hills and Ranges accepted by court

The Supreme Court, after considering the reports submitted by various expert bodies and committees, adopted a uniform definition of the Aravalli Hills and Ranges for the purpose of regulating mining activities. According to the definition accepted by the Court, Aravalli Hills include any landform rising 100 metres or more above the surrounding area. Further, Aravalli Ranges consist of two or more such hills located within a distance of 500 metres of each other, including the land lying between them.

The Court, however, made it explicitly clear that this definition was formulated solely for mining and regulatory purposes. It was not intended to dilute, limit, or reduce the level of environmental and forest protection afforded to the Aravalli region under existing laws. The Supreme Court emphasised that the adoption of a uniform definition was necessary to prevent states from exploiting ambiguities in classification and permitting mining activities in ecologically sensitive areas under the guise of “non-forest” land.

By clarifying the limited scope of this definition, the Court ensured that environmental safeguards remained intact while enabling effective regulation and monitoring of mining operations. This approach reflects the judiciary’s careful balance between administrative clarity and the continued protection of the fragile Aravalli ecosystem.

Mining rules laid down by the court

The Supreme Court laid down detailed guidelines to regulate mining activities in the Aravalli Hills with the objective of preventing further environmental degradation and ensuring sustainable use of natural resources. The Court adopted a precautionary approach and clearly identified areas where mining is strictly prohibited, as well as conditions under which limited mining may be permitted.

Areas Where Mining Is Strictly Prohibited

The Supreme Court categorically prohibited mining activities in the following areas:

1. Wildlife sanctuaries and tiger reserves declared under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, including identified tiger corridors.
2. Eco-sensitive zones and environmentally fragile areas.
3. Areas within a 2-kilometre radius of perennial water bodies, including wetlands identified and notified as Ramsar Sites.
4. Groundwater recharge zones and areas located near water bodies.
5. Areas classified as “dark zones” by the Central Ground Water Board, such as Faridabad and Gurugram, where groundwater exploitation is critical.
6. The National Capital Region (NCR) due to its high level of environmental stress.
7. All areas where plantations have been raised using funds provided by the government or any public agency.
8.  Mining of minerals that disturb large volumes of soil and rock but yield low economic returns, such as masonry stone.
9.  Areas falling within a 10-kilometre aerial distance on either side of the inter-State boundary between Rajasthan and Haryana along the Aravalli Hill range.

Conditions for Permitted Mining

While recognising the environmental risks, the Supreme Court did not impose a ban on mining. Instead, it allowed mining in a limited and regulated manner, subject to strict compliance with environmental safeguards. The Court directed that:

• Only existing legal mines may continue operations.
• Illegal mining and excess production beyond permitted limits are strictly prohibited.

• Mining operations that intersect or affect groundwater must be immediately closed to prevent depletion of underground aquifers and wastage of water.
• All mining activities must strictly comply with environmental laws, rules, and clearance conditions.

      Temporary Ban and Forest Areas

The Supreme Court imposed a temporary ban on the opening of new mines until further scientific studies were conducted. Court further ordered that all mining activities in forest areas falling within the Aravalli Hill Ranges be suspended. Such mining may be permitted only in exceptional circumstances, and only after the completion of proper mapping of the area and an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) study.

New direction by Supreme Court

In order to ensure long-term environmental protection and regulated use of natural resources, the Supreme Court issued directions for the preparation of a Management Plan for Sustainable Mining (MPSM) for the entire Aravalli range. The Court drew inspiration from the Management Plan earlier prepared for the Saranda Forest in Jharkhand, recognising the effectiveness of a comprehensive and scientific planning approach in environmentally sensitive regions.

The Court directed that the MPSM must comprehensively assess the Aravalli ecosystem and clearly demarcate:

• No-mining zones, where all mining activities are to be strictly prohibited;
• Areas where limited and sustainable mining may be permitted, subject to strict environmentalsafeguards; and
• The cumulative environmental impact of mining activities across the entire Aravalli range rather than isolated project-based assessments.

Further, the Supreme Court mandated that the Management Plan include detailed restoration and rehabilitation measures for areas already degraded due to past mining activities. These measures are intended to ensure ecological recovery and prevent irreversible environmental damage.

The responsibility for conducting this scientific study and preparing the Management Plan was entrusted to the Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education (ICFRE). By assigning the task to a specialised expert institution, the Court ensured that decision-making would be based on scientific data, expert analysis, and principles of sustainable development.

Final decision of the Court

The Supreme Court delivered a comprehensive decision aimed at ensuring the long-term protection of the Aravalli Hills while permitting limited and regulated use of natural resources. The Court accepted the uniform definition of the Aravalli Hills and Ranges as recommended by the expert committees, thereby removing ambiguity that had previously been exploited to permit illegal mining.

The Court upheld a complete ban on mining activities in core and ecologically sensitive areas, recognising the fragile nature of the Aravalli ecosystem. At the same time, it allowed existing legal mining operations to continue, subject to strict compliance with environmental laws, conditions, and regulatory safeguards. Any form of illegal or excess mining was categorically prohibited.

Further, the Supreme Court directed the preparation of a Management Plan for Sustainable Mining (MPSM) for the entire Aravalli range. The Court ordered that no new mining leases or renewal of existing leases shall be granted in the Aravalli Hill Rangesuntil the completion and implementation of the MPSM. This measure was intended to prevent further environmental degradation during the planning phase.

The Court emphasised that environmental protection must be viewed as a long-term and intergenerational responsibility. By emphasizing ecological sustainability over short-term profits, the Supreme Court reinforced sustainable development and precautionary principles, strengthening Indian environmental law.

Legal Principles Applied by the Supreme Court

1. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution – Right to Life

The Supreme Court applied Right to Life under Article 21 includes the right to a clean, healthy, and pollution-free environment. The Court directly applied this principle, observing that destruction of the Aravalli Hills adversely affects air quality, groundwater recharge, climate balance, and rainfall patterns. Such environmental degradation poses a serious threat to public health and livelihood. Therefore, unregulated and illegal mining in the Aravalli region was held to be a violation of Article 21.

2. Article 48A – Directive Principle of State Policy

Article 48A imposes a constitutional duty upon the State to protect and improve the environment and safeguard forests and wildlife. The Court criticised the States for permitting mining activities in forest-like and ecologically sensitive areas by adopting inconsistent and manipulated definitions of the Aravalli Hills. It held that the State cannot escape its constitutional responsibility through technical interpretations, and must actively protect the Aravalli ecosystem.

3. Article 51A(g) – Fundamental Duty of Citizens Article 51A(g) places a duty on citizens to protect and improve the natural environment. The Court observed that mining companies prioritised economic profit while ignoring environmental damage. It emphasised that economic development cannot be pursued at the cost of environmental destruction and the rights of future generations, reinforcing the principle of inter-generational equity.

4. Environment Protection Act, 1986

The Court relied on the Environment Protection Act, 1986 to prohibit mining activities in ecologically sensitive areas and to mandate strict environmental safeguards. The Act empowered the Court to issue directions for preventing further environmental degradation in the Aravalli region.

5. Forest Conservation Act, 1980

The Supreme Court held that mining without prior approval under the Forest Conservation Act is illegal. It clarified that even if land is officially recorded as non-forest, its ecological character and function must be considered, and forest-like areas cannot be exploited without statutory clearance.

6. International Environmental Law – UNCCD

The Court also referred to India’s obligations under the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD). Since the Aravalli range plays a crucial role in preventing desertification and controlling desert expansion, the Court held that protecting the Aravallis aligns with India’s international environmental commitments.

7. Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act).

While recognising that mining is governed by the MMDR Act, the Court clarified that mineral development cannot override environmental protection. Mining activities must strictly comply with environmental laws and judicial directions.

8. Precautionary Principle and Sustainable Development

The Court strongly applied the Precautionary Principle, holding that lack of complete scientific certainty cannot be a reason to allow environmentally harmful activities. It also reaffirmed the principle of Sustainable Development, stating that development must meet present needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

Significance of the Judgment

This judgment is a landmark in Indian Environmental jurisprudence. It strengthened environmental governance by mandating scientific planning, sustainable mining, and uniform legal standards across States. The decision curtailed arbitrary State action, reinforced constitutional environmental duties, and prioritised long-term ecological protection over short-term economic gains. By doing so, the Supreme Court reaffirmed its role as a guardian of environmental rights under the Constitution.