Exceptional exemptions
Two developments in November 2025 occurred in close succession and merit examination together. 18 November 18, in a separate case, the Supreme Court permitted , reversing its own May 2025 ruling that had declared the practice illegal. Two days later, on November 20, the court accepted the new Aravalli definition, while delicately carving out exceptions for critical, strategic and atomic minerals.
The ex post facto clearance ruling allows projects that commenced construction without prior environmental approval to seek retrospective clearance upon payment of penalties. In his dissent, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan described this as “a step in retrogression” that undermines India’s precautionary principle in environmental law. The majority opinion by Justice BR Gavai argued that refusing such clearances would result in the waste of “thousands of crores of rupees”.
The Aravalli judgment simultaneously permits the mining of atomic minerals (including uranium and thorium) and critical minerals such as lithium, cobalt, nickel, rare earth elements, tantalum and tungsten — effectively encompassing nearly all economically significant minerals found in the range.
This conjunction raises an important procedural question: does the ex post facto clearance framework now apply to mining in the Aravallis? If extraction begins without prior environmental clearance, can it subsequently be regularised? Does the so-called mining ban apply only to the newly defined Aravallis, or to the broader landscape?
The language of the November 20 . The court directed the preparation of a Management Plan for Sustainable Mining (MPSM) through the Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education (ICFRE), stating that “till the MPSM is finalised by the MoEF&CC [Union Ministry for Environment, Forest and Climate Change] through ICFRE, no new mining leases should be granted”. However, this does not explicitly prohibit post-facto clearance for mining operations that have already commenced. Moreover, mining of atomic and critical minerals is now categorised as serving “strategic and defence projects”, placing it within exceptions under the Environmental Impact Assessment rules and allowing further regulatory leeway.
The judgment cannot be read in isolation. In January 2025, the government launched the National Critical Mineral Mission with an outlay of Rs 18,000 crore to ensure “sustainable, resilient and self-reliant” mineral supply chains. In September 2025, a ministry directive exempted critical and atomic mineral mining projects from mandatory public hearings and standard Environmental Impact Assessments, bypassing state-level clearances.
In December 2025, the Sustainable Harnessing and Advancement of Nuclear Energy for Transforming India (SHANTI) Bill opened India’s nuclear sector to private companies for the first time since 1962. It capped operator liability at Rs 3,000 crore for reactors above 3,600 MW, with residual risk borne by the taxpayer. As uranium and thorium are now classified as atomic minerals exempted in the Aravalli judgment, private companies may prospect, extract and refine these minerals in the Aravallis, and operate nuclear plants with capped liability.
Four questions for reconsideration
On expertise and process: Will the court clarify whether the FSI, CEC and GSI genuinely supported the 100-metre definition? If not, how should their institutional positions inform the final definition?
On quantitative impact: Will the court commission an authoritative assessment of how many documented Aravalli hills fall below the 100-metre threshold? This does not require reliance on the disputed FSI study, but rather a comprehensive elevation-based survey.
On ecological function: What is the scientific consensus on the minimum elevation or slope required for the Aravallis to function as a desert barrier, wildlife corridor and water recharge system? Should ecological function, rather than arbitrary elevation, determine the definition?
On regulatory interaction: Will the post facto environmental clearance framework and exemptions for critical and atomic minerals apply to mining in the Aravallis? The judgment should clarify whether mining can commence without prior clearance and later seek regularisation, and whether the exempted minerals will be permitted going forward.
Institutional Stakes
By placing expert institutions within a committee they did not effectively control, and by adopting a definition that appears to contradict those institutions’ own analyses, the November 20 judgment marks a departure from the court’s traditionally meticulous approach to environmental adjudication. The subsequent stay suggests an implicit recognition of this concern.
On reconsideration, the court has an opportunity to reassert the primacy of institutional expertise, to demand quantified and transparent analysis rather than rely on contested figures, and to ground the definition of the Aravallis in the ecological functions they perform. These are not questions of environmental absolutism versus economic pragmatism. They are questions of whether a foundational definition will rest on sound ecological and technical reasoning, or on administratively convenient metrics.
The integrity of the Aravalli Range depends on how the court answers them.
