The Supreme Court is hearing the suo motu case related to issues concerning the definition of the Aravalli Hills.

A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices JK Maheshwari and AG Masih is hearing the matter.

The Aravalli range spans across Delhi, Haryana, Rajasthan and Gujarat. The top court had earlier approved an elevation-linked definition for classifying landforms as part of the Aravalli Hills for the purpose of mining regulation.

In May 2024, the Court in a matter related to illegal mining in Aravalli, noted that different States had adopted different definitions for “Aravalli Hills/Ranges” and constituted a committee to look into the issues.

The committee suggested that any landform in the Aravalli districts having an elevation of 100 metres or more from the local relief shall be termed as Aravalli Hills.

Further, it defined the Aravalli Range as “two or more Aravalli Hills located within a proximity of 500m from each other, measured from the outermost point on the boundary of the lowest contour line on either side."

In November this year, a Bench of then CJI BR Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria accepted the recommendations made by the Committee with regard to the definitions as well as a prohibition of mining in core or inviolate areas.

The Court decided against imposing a complete ban on mining activities in the Aravallis, observing that such a prohibition could lead to illegal mining activities, mafia and criminalisation.

However, the November ruling has since sparked concerns that the new definition of what would constitute an Aravalli hill could lead to less protection in the area from mining and ancillary activities.

The top court took suo motu cognisance of issues concerning the hill range amid public demonstrations about what the judgment passed last month could mean for the Aravallis.

Hearing begins.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta: There were a lot of misconceptions regarding orders, the government's role etc. An expert committee was constituted, and a report was given which the court accepted.

CJI: We feel that the report of the expert committee and some resultant observations made by this court ... which is generating misunderstood notions.. it will need some clarifications.

CJI: Prior to implementation of the report or implementation of the judgment of this court ... a fair independent exercise is needed to provide guidance on:

1.Whether definition of Aravalli restricted to 500 meters area creates a structural paradox where conservation area is narrowed?

2. Has it broadened the scope of non-Aravalli area where regulated mining can be conducted?

3. Whether regulated mining shall be allowed in the gaps? Suppose there are two areas of 100 meters and above, and what about the gap of 700 meters between them?

4. How to ensure ecological continuity can be preserved?

5. If a significant regulatory lacuna is discovered, then whether a significant assessment would be needed to maintain the structural integrity of the range?

We have said... We propose that a high-powered expert committee of domain experts be formed to analyse the report submitted by the expert committee

CJI: We have issued notice to the Union, the two States and Mr. Parameshwar, since he was the amicus and he shall assist us.

CJI: SG Mehta and Attorney General shall also be assisting us.

[BREAKING] CJI: We direct that recommendations of the committee and findings of the Supreme Court thereafter shall remain in abeyance till then.

Case to be taken up next on January 21, 2026.

CJI: These IA people are filing IAs and then going out and speaking. We don't appreciate this. Order has been kept in abeyance now.