On December 29, the Supreme Court put in abeyance a contentious definition of the Aravalli hills which it had adopted just weeks ago.
Last month, the Supreme Court had accepted a government-led committee’s suggestion to define the Aravalli hills as landforms with elevations above 100 metres from ground level. A range would constitute two such hills falling within 500 metres of each other. The Court had taken up the issue to define the Aravalli hills on its own, to avoid “conflicting judgements” in two ongoing cases related to mining in the hill range.
The definition was widely criticised for being exclusionary and inconsistent with the range’s geological and ecological characteristics. Following a public outcry, on December 29, a bench led by newly appointed Chief Justice Surya Kant decided to revisit the matter and stay the contentious definition till “a fair, impartial, independent expert opinion” on the matter is sought.
The Court noted that the new definition left room for ambiguity, especially about whether the new definition broadens “non-Aravalli” areas and reduces the scope of protected areas. It also sought clarification about whether the “the widely publicized criticism” that the new definition would only protect 1,048 hills out of 12,081 in Rajasthan, was correct.
“Such an inquiry would involve the precise measurement of all hill and hillock elevations to facilitate a more nuanced and ‘measured’ assessment of the criteria required to maintain the structural and ecological integrity of the entire range,” the Court said, adding, “There is a dire need to further probe and clarify to prevent any regulatory gaps that might undermine the ecological integrity of the Aravalli region.”
The Court has tasked a new High Powered Committee “comprising domain experts” to critically assess the government-led committee’s proposed definition, and investigate five areas in particular: a specific enumeration of the specific regions covered by the new definition, the territories that would be excluded by it, an analysis of whether “sustainable mining” within the covered areas “would result in any adverse ecological consequences,” and an evaluation of the short and long term environmental impacts of the suggested definition.
Apart from experts, the Court has also instructed the Amicus Curae K. Parameshwar and the Supreme Court’s Central Empowered Committee to aid the assessment.
“This stay shall remain in effect until the present proceedings reach a state of logical finality,” reads the order, adding that in the interim, the Forest Survey of India’s suggested definition from 2010 should be adopted.
The Forest Survey of India recommends defining the Aravallis as hills with gentle slopes of three degrees or more, with a buffer of 100 metres around the slope’s downside.
Banner image: Aravalli hills in Pushkar, Rajasthan. Image by Vyacheslav Argenberg via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY 4.0).