The Forest Survey of India (FSI) has issued a rebuttal to recent media reports and interpretations suggesting that its studies or data indicate only 9% (approximately 8.7-9%) of the Aravalli hills rise above 100 meters in height, implying that 90% of the range would lose protection following the Supreme Court's judgment dated November 20.
In a post on X, the FSI, responsible for assessment and monitoring of the forest resources of the country, clarified that it has not conducted or endorsed any specific study claiming that merely 9% of the Aravalli range qualifies as hills above 100 meters, nor has it concluded that 90% of the hills would be left unprotected as a result of the top court's recent order.
The backstory
The controversy stems from the Supreme Court's landmark judgment on November 20 in long-pending matters related to mining and environmental protection in the Aravalli Hills and Ranges.
The court accepted a uniform definition recommended by a high-level committee under the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC). This definition classifies landforms as "Aravalli Hills" if they rise 100 meters or more above the local surrounding terrain (relief), with adjacent areas and slopes included, and "Aravalli Ranges" as clusters of such hills within 500 meters of each other.
The ruling aimed to resolve longstanding inconsistencies in how different states defined the Aravallis, which span across Rajasthan, Haryana, Gujarat, and Delhi. The court also imposed a freeze on new mining leases until a comprehensive Management Plan for Sustainable Mining is prepared, emphasising the range's critical role in preventing desertification, recharging groundwater, and acting as a natural barrier against dust storms from the Thar Desert.
Media reports and environmental groups have cited internal assessments - reportedly from the FSI - showing that, in Rajasthan alone, only about 1,048 out of 12,081 mapped hill formations (rising at least 20 meters) meet the 100m threshold. This equates to roughly 8.7%, leading to claims that over 90% of the Aravalli system could lose legal safeguards against mining, construction, and other activities.
These interpretations have sparked widespread protests in Rajasthan and Haryana, with environmentalists warning of accelerated ecological degradation, increased desertification risks, and threats to the Delhi-NCR region's air quality.
FSI's Clarification
The FSI emphasised that the figures being circulated do not represent an official FSI study concluding widespread loss of protection. It stated:
> "FSI categorically refutes claims in certain sections of the media that it has carried out any study saying that only 9% Aravalli is above 100 meters."
The organization further clarified:
> "FSI categorically refutes claims in certain sections of the media that it has carried out any study showing that 90% of the hills in Aravalli would be left unprotected following the recent judgement of Supreme Court"
The FSI's position aligns with government clarifications, including statements from Environment Minister Bhupender Yadav, asserting that the new definition - when applied to entire hill systems, contours, and surrounding areas - will actually bring over 90% of the Aravalli region under protected status. Officials have described the 100-meter criterion as a globally accepted geological standard (drawing from classifications like Richard Murphy's), aimed at preventing misuse and ensuring objective, map-verifiable boundaries.
Broader Implications
The Aravalli range, often called India's oldest mountain system (dating back over 2 billion years), has been a focal point of environmental litigation since the 1990s. Previous Supreme Court interventions, including bans on mining in certain areas, were driven by concerns over irreversible damage from quarrying.
While environmental activists and opposition leaders have labelled the new definition a potential "death warrant" for much of the range, the government and the court maintain that it strengthens uniform protection and sustainable regulation.
The FSI's rebuttal comes amid ongoing debates and protests, with calls for more inclusive criteria (such as slope-based definitions previously used by the FSI) to better capture the ecological continuity of the low-relief hills and ridges.
