The Supreme Court has kept in abeyance its earlier order defining the Aravalli hills and ranges.
The move follows concerns that the definition was being misconstrued.
Large-scale protests erupted in Rajasthan and Haryana over fears of mining and ecological damage.
The court has ordered the formation of a high-powered, independent expert committee.
Mining activity has been halted until the new assessment is completed.
The Supreme Court of India has stayed its earlier order approving a uniform definition of the Aravalli hills and ranges, after observing that the recommendations of the expert committee appointed by the court had been misconstrued.
The court said the committee’s report, which was accepted by it on November 20, 2025 had led to confusion and concern, particularly over its implications for mining activity and ecological protection in the Aravalli region.
The decision, which also led to large scale protests in Rajasthan and Haryana, came amid fears that the definition could weaken safeguards against mining and lead to further environmental degradation.
The earlier directions had also required the central government to prepare a Management Plan for Sustainable Mining (MPSM) for the entire Aravalli range.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice J K Maheshwari and Justice A G Masih took suo motu cognisance of the matter on December 28 and ordered an urgent hearing the following day.
Environmentalists have expressed significant concern over the potential misinterpretation and improper implementation of the newly adopted definition and the Supreme Court directions, the bench stated in its order. “This public dissent and criticism appear to stem from the perceived ambiguity and lack of clarity in certain terms and directives issued by this court. Consequently, 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,” it said.
Nearly 50 per cent of the Aravallis’ area would become vulnerable to mining if the new definition accepted, a Down To Earth (DTE) analysis had found.
The committee had proposed a uniform definition for the Aravallis across Gujarat, Rajasthan, Haryana and Delhi, using slope and elevation as criteria. Under the definition, Aravalli hills were described as landforms in designated districts with a minimum elevation of 100 metres from the local relief, including supporting slopes and connected landforms. An Aravalli range was defined as a landform where two or more such hills lie within 500 metres of each other.
Pointing out a flurry of applications filed following the earlier order, the court said both the committee's report and the judgment omitted to expressly clarify certain critical issues.
A “fair, impartial, independent expert opinion must be obtained and considered, after associating all requisite stakeholders,” prior to implementation of the panel’s report, the order said.
Chief Justice Kant said such a step was necessary to determine whether the definition created a “structural paradox” and whether it had, in effect, broadened the scope of areas excluded from the Aravallis, potentially facilitating unregulated mining.
The bench also sought clarity on whether regulated mining would be permitted in the 500-metre gaps between hills, and if so, what specific structural parameters would be applied to maintain ecological continuity and integrity of the Aravalli landscape.
The court questioned whether the finding that 1,048 hills out of 12,081 met the 100-metre elevation criterion was scientifically and factually sound.
“We propose to constitute a high-powered expert committee to undertake an assessment of the report for a holistic examination of the questions framed,” the court said. The review would include identifying areas covered and excluded under the definition, assessing the ecological impact of regulated mining, and evaluating both short- and long-term environmental consequences of the proposed criteria.
The court asked the Centre to inform it about the proposed composition of the expert committee, and requested the Attorney General for India R Venkataramani and senior advocate P S Parmeswaran to assist the court.
It said the stay on its earlier directions would remain in force until the new committee is constituted, and issued notices to the states concerned, directing them to halt mining activity in the meantime.
Environmental lawyer Ritwick Dutta said the court’s decision to keep the earlier judgment in abeyance indicated that it had not accepted the government’s claim that the definition served the best interests of the Aravallis.
“The fact that a new committee will review the findings also suggests that the earlier committee, chaired by the secretary of the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, was found to be lacking in scientific rigour,” he said.