Apex Court keeps its earlier Aravalli order in abeyance

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday kept in abeyance its earlier directions concerning the change in definition of Aravalli hills after expressing concern that the expert committee report and its observations "are being misconstrued".

A three-member vacation bench of CJI Surya Kant and justices JK Maheshwari and AG Masih stayed the ruling passed last month on Aravalli that was based on the recommendations made by a panel constituted to define the Aravalli range for the purposes of mining.

The bench ruled certain clarifications were necessary regarding the definitions it recently approved for the Aravalli hills while staying a ruling passed last month on the issue.


The bench said a committee of experts will be constituted to study the environmental impact of the recommendations made by an earlier committee that was mostly composed of bureaucrats.

CJI Kant added an independent expert opinion was needed to resolve ambiguities and to provide definitive guidance on the issues, particularly the definitions of hills and ranges. SC added there was a need to examine whether the restrictive demarcation approved last month would broaden the scope of areas where activities like mining can be permitted.

"We direct that recommendations of the committee and findings of the Supreme Court... shall remain in abeyance till then. Case to be taken up on January 21, 2026," the bench ordered.

The court also flagged specific concerns requiring examination, including whether regulated mining would be permitted in the 500-m gaps between hills, and if so, what precise structural parameters would be used to ensure that ecological continuity was not compromised. The bench said it must be determined whether the concern that only 1,048 hills out of 12,081 meet the 100-metre elevation threshold was factually and scientifically correct, and whether a geological enquiry was necessary.

The bench requested attorney general R Venkataramani to assist the court, including on the composition of the proposed committee.

Representing the Centre, solicitor general Tushar Mehta submitted that there were a lot of misconceptions regarding orders, the government's role, etc. Mehta assured the bench that the Centre will assist the court "in a constructive manner". He apprised the bench that notices had been issued to states directing that no further mining activity be carried out.