The Supreme Courtaccepted the Ministry of Environment proposal of a new 100-metre definition for Aravallis ministry’s new 100-metre despite concerns raised by its own panel, according to The Indian Express. The Central Empowered Committee (CEC) – which monitors compliance with SC orders on environment, forest and wildlife – had written to the amicus curiae assisting the bench that they did not examine or approve the recommendation the very next day the ministry had sent the proposal to the top court, The Indian Express reported.
The CEC is a body created by the Supreme Court in 2002 to oversee and ensure that court orders related to forests and the environment are followed.
On November 20, the Supreme Court went ahead and accepted the ministry’s new 100-metre definition.
In a letter dated October 14, seen by The Indian Express, the CEC said the definition prepared by the Forest Survey of India (FSI) should be used to protect and preserve the Aravalli hills and their ecosystem.
The Forest Survey of India (FSI) had identified 40,481 square kilometres across 15 districts of Rajasthan as part of the Aravallis. It defined these areas as land above a certain height with a slope of at least three degrees. Under this method, even smaller and lower hill areas would get protection. The mapping was done after the Supreme Court asked the CEC to involve the FSI in 2010.
When The Indian Express asked whether the CEC’s disagreement with the 100-metre definition was shared with the Supreme Court bench led by then Chief Justice of India B R Gavai, the amicus curiae K Parmeshwar did not respond.
However, in a PowerPoint presentation submitted to the court, titled Implications and pitfalls of the new definition of Aravalli Hill and Ranges, the amicus curiae strongly used FSI data to argue against the ministry’s proposal.
The presentation said the 100-metre definition breaks the natural shape and continuity of the Aravalli range. It warned that this approach would scatter the hills instead of protecting them and said the ministry’s definition was unclear and should not be accepted.
ALSO READDelhi-NCR: GRAP 4 restrictions withdrawn after air quality improves to ‘poor’ – What it means
How CEC came into picture?
In May 2024, the Supreme Court asked the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change to set up a committee under the Environment Secretary to create a single, clear definition of the Aravalli hills. The aim was to protect the region from mining. The Central Empowered Committee (CEC) was represented on this panel by Dr J R Bhatt.
In a letter dated October 14 to the amicus curiae, CEC chairman and former Director General of Forests Siddhant Das said that the CEC had asked Dr Bhatt to share the draft minutes of the committee’s meeting held on October 3, reported IE. The purpose was to study them properly before forming a view.
The letter said no draft minutes were ever shared with the CEC, and the panel never examined the report prepared by the ministry. As a result, the views presented in the Ministry’s affidavit and attributed to the CEC were actually Dr Bhatt’s personal views, not those of the committee. The report submitted by the ministry to the court was also unsigned.
The same letter made it clear that the CEC believed the definition prepared by the FSI should be followed instead of the Ministry’s proposal.
When contacted by IE, Siddhant Das said the CEC does not comment on matters that are before the courts. Dr Bhatt also chose not to respond.
ALSO READAravalli hills issue: Decoding the 100-metre benchmark and the use of ‘local profile’
Why the FSI definition matters?
In material submitted to the court, the amicus curiae relied heavily on data prepared by the Forest Survey of India to challenge the ministry’s 100-metre definition. Maps based on the FSI’s method, suggest that Aravalli boundary includes not just the main hills but also many smaller hillocks spread across the range.
He warned that if the 100-metre rule is applied, these smaller hills would no longer be counted as part of the Aravallis. This could open them up to mining and other activities, causing serious damage to the environment and possibly speeding up the spread of the Thar Desert towards the east. He concluded that the ministry’s approach lacked clarity and should not be accepted.
FSI denies media claims, but internal note raises red flags
In a post on X, the Forest Survey of India said it strongly rejected reports claiming it had conducted a study showing that 90% of Aravalli hills would lose protection after the Supreme Court’s ruling.
However, on November 26, The Indian Express reported that an internal FSI assessment, not a formal study, had warned the ministry and the CEC that the 100-metre definition would leave out 91.3% of 12,081 Aravalli hills that are 20 metres or taller across 15 districts of Rajasthan.
The assessment also noted that a height of 20 metres is important for hills to act as natural wind barriers. If all 1,18,575 Aravalli hills are counted, more than 99% would fail to meet the 100-metre threshold.
Unanswered questions on mining and future impact
On Monday, Environment Minister Bhupender Yadav said mining is allowed in only 0.19% of the total Aravalli area, which covers about 1.44 lakh square kilometres. He said this comes to roughly 278 square kilometres. However, the Ministry’s own data shows this figure reflects land already under mining across Rajasthan, Gujarat and Haryana.
The ministry has not yet clarified how much more mining or development could take place once lower hills are excluded under the new definition.
Yadav also said the actual area covered under the 100-metre rule would be known only after on-ground mapping is completed. This has raised questions about how the ministry assured the Supreme Court that the new definition would cover more land than the FSI’s method, which is based on slope and elevation. |
