Lawyer and environmental activist Hitendra Gandhi has written to the Chief Justice of India asking that the '100-metre' decision about Aravalli - that only landforms rising 100 meters or more above local terrain now qualify as "Aravalli". - which has sparked a storm of protests, be reconsidered. In the letter, which has also been sent to the President of India, he said a narrow, height-based criterion could unintentionally weaken environmental protection across North-West India.
In his letter, Gandhi described the Supreme Court's November 20 order as a significant and welcome step in recognising the Aravalli system as an ecologically critical natural shield.
But he raised concern over the operational definition adopted in the order, under which landforms with a "local relief" of 100 metres or more above their immediate surroundings are treated as the primary criterion for identifying Aravalli hills and ranges.
This approach, he said, risks excluding large, ecologically integral parts of the Aravalli landscape that may not meet the numerical height hreshold but remain functionally critical.
The letter emphasised that the Aravallis are an ancient and highly eroded ridge system, where ecological value is not confined to prominent peaks. Low-relief ridges, outcrops, slopes, corridors and recharge-bearing terrains play a vital role in groundwater recharge, dust and desertification buffering, biodiversity connectivity, microclimate moderation and the overall ecological resilience of the Delhi-NCR region.
Gandhi cautioned that environmental protection in India is often triggered by legal classification and land records. A narrowly framed definition, he said, could create "grey zones" where enforcement becomes uncertain, enabling land-use conversion, mining and construction in areas that are scientifically part of the Aravalli system. Such outcomes, he warned, may be irreversible.
The activist grounded his submissions in constitutional principles, citing the right to a healthy environment under Article 21, along with Articles 48A and 51A(g), which impose duties on the State and citizens to protect the environment.
What Court Ordered
Last month, a bench headed by former Chief Justice of India BR Gavai had declared that only landforms rising 100 meters or more above local terrain now qualify as "Aravalli".
The decision was made according to the recommendation of a committee under the Environment Ministry. It was meant to standardise the definition of Aravallis, which runs across Gujarat, Rajasthan, Delhi and Haryana.
Why The Controversy
The Supreme Court's November 20 order had environmentalists and activists up in arms. Environmentalists warned that it would unleash a wave of mining and real estate development. This, they said, would cause irreversible ecological havoc -- accelerating desertification, crippling groundwater recharge, and dooming biodiversity in a region already gasping under pollution and water scarcity.
Government View
The government has declared that 90 per cent of the Aravalli region will remain "protected" now and cited a Supreme Court-ordered freeze on new mining leases in the region. Environment minister Bhupendra Yadav said, "no relaxation has been granted" with regard to the protection of the Aravalli region and claimed "lies" have been spread on the issue.
In a post on X, formerly Twitter, Union Environment Minister Bhupender Yadav said: "Mining is not allowed in the Aravalli range within the NCR, which includes Delhi, Gurugram, Faridabad, Nuh, and parts of Alwar. Court decisions also restrict the grant of new mining leases in the Aravalli hills and range, with exceptions only for critical, strategic, and atomic minerals."
What Top Court Said About Mining
The three-judge bench of BR Gavai (then CJI) and Justices K Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria, had asked the Environment ministry to prepare a "Management Plan for Sustainable Mining" for the entire Aravalli range in connection with a matter concerning its conservation and definition.
Regarding the ban on mining, the court said 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 court directed that till the MPSM is finalised, no new mining leases should be granted, and once finalized, mining would be permitted as per the MPSM.
