Subscribe
Aravalli Virasat Jan Abhiyaan has questioned the Supreme Court’s decision to deny a six-month extension to a committee examining the definition and extent of the Aravalli hills.
The citizens’ group says the High Powered Committee needs more time for scientific review, field assessments and consultations with communities affected by mining and other pressures.
The committee has been directed to submit its final report by November 30, 2026, with the next hearing scheduled for December 2.
Activists say the proposed “Aravalli Ecosystem Landscape” framework must assess ecological, hydrological, cultural and socio-economic dimensions across the hill range.
A citizens’ group working on the protection of the Aravallis has questioned the Supreme Court’s decision to deny a six-month extension to a committee examining the definition and extent of the hill range.
The Aravalli Virasat Jan Abhiyaan said the court’s decision raised concerns about whether the committee would have enough time to complete a scientifically rigorous assessment of the Aravalli landscape.
The Supreme Court of India had constituted a High Powered Committee on May 25, 2026, while hearing a petition relating to the definition of the Aravalli hills and ranges and ancillary issues. The committee submitted its compliance report to the Supreme Court on August 31, 2026.
According to a statement issued by the Aravalli Virasat Jan Abhiyaan, the Chief Justice of India did not accept the committee’s request for a six-month extension during a hearing on September 7. The court directed the committee to work “day and night” and submit its final report by November 30, 2026, the group said.
The next hearing is scheduled for December 2, 2026.
Diwan Singh, co-founder of Aravalli Virasat Jan Abhiyaan, said the committee had sought more time because its work had revealed the scientific complexity of the issues under examination. “Why is the Supreme Court in such a hurry that Chief Justice Surya Kant cannot grant a six-month extension?” Singh said.
He alleged that the approach risked repeating earlier mistakes and said the fate of the Aravallis should not be decided in haste.
Singh said it was disturbing that the Supreme Court had not accepted the request of a committee created by its own order. “Why should the Committee work day and night to submit a report that needs scientific rigour and time just so that Chief Justice Surya Kant gets to pass the order which will decide the fate of the Aravallis before he retires in early February 2027?” he alleged.
The group in a statement said the Aravallis took billions of years to form and that an assessment of the “Aravalli Ecosystem Landscape” could not be rushed. It said the framework being considered by the committee involves several interconnected dimensions, including geology, ecology, hydrology, culture and socio-economic conditions.
The group said the study would need to consider the core hill system, recorded forests, protected areas, sacred sites, orans and traditional pastures, wetlands, critical catchments, groundwater recharge areas, archaeological sites and, where relevant, ecological links with the adjoining Vindhyan hill systems.
It asked how such a study could be completed in two months.
According to the group, the committee’s framework aims to integrate geological and geomorphological features with watershed and hydrological systems, forests, biodiversity, ecological connectivity, ecosystem services to downstream areas, communities and human settlements, among other parameters.
The statement said the committee needed additional time for the framework to be reviewed by domain experts and stakeholders.
Quoting the interim report, the group said the committee considered methodological examination and validation of its results by agencies of repute, such as the National Remote Sensing Centre and the Indian Space Research Organisation, to be important. It said estimates of area, number of hills and terrain-derived parameters could have significant ecological, conservation, regulatory and socio-economic implications.
The group said additional field assessments in representative areas and targeted stakeholder consultations were also needed. It said these consultations should include local communities, tribal groups, civil society organisations, state agencies, mineral-sector stakeholders, farmers and others whose livelihoods or interests are linked to the Aravalli landscape.
Such consultations, the statement said, were necessary to test and contextualise findings from scientific and spatial analysis, and to ensure the final assessment reflected diverse stakeholder perspectives and ground-level realities.
Singh said all these aspects required time and should not be rushed. He drew a comparison with the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel, which took a year before recommending that the Western Ghats be declared an ecologically sensitive area.
“Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel took a year before they recommended that the Western Ghats be declared as an ‘ecologically sensitive area’ and followed a structured process, with 40 consultations with civil society groups, 8 consultations with government agencies, 7 brainstorming sessions and 14 field visits. Its database, meeting minutes and supporting material were made publicly accessible so that the basis of the Panel’s recommendations could be examined. The Aravallis deserve nothing less,” he added.
Sadhna Meena, a grassroots Bhil Adivasi leader from south Rajasthan, said rural communities were among the most critical stakeholders in the Aravalli landscape and should be included more fully. “A more inclusive approach must be adopted to reach out to rural communities,” she said in the statement.
She said effective public consultation by the Aravalli committee at the sub-district level, or at least at the district level, should be carried out in all 64 districts of the Aravalli range, with adequate notice to people. Meena urged the committee to hold focus group discussions in villages most affected by the destruction of the Aravallis over recent decades.
“We urge the Committee to also carry out focus group discussions in a few villages in every district that have been most impacted by the destruction of the Aravallis over the last few decades as a result of waste dumping and burning, mining, stone crushing, dust washing, silicosis and other diseases, to understand the ‘social and ecological costs of mining in the Aravallis’ over the last five decades,” she added.
Ashok Shrimali, founder of grassroots alliance Mines, Minerals and People in Gujarat, said the committee should expand its terms of reference to review rules in Gujarat, Rajasthan and Haryana on the siting of mining and stone-crushing units.
He said the review should examine their proximity to rivers, ecologically sensitive areas, human habitation, agricultural land and pasture land. Shrimali also called for a review of rules allowing water-intensive activities, such as mining and dust-washing plants, in blocks that are already water-scarce.
