Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
2025 INSC 1338
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
INHERENT/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
IN RE : ISSUE RELATING TO DEFINITION OF ARAVALI
HILLS AND RANGES
I.A. NO.105701 OF 2024
(CEC REPORT NO. 03 OF 2024)
IN
WRIT PETITION (C) NO.202 OF 1995
IN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD
…PETITIONER
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS …RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
B.R. GAVAI, CJI
MPORTANCE OF RAVALIS
I A
1. In the present matter, we are concerned with the
definition of Aravali Hills and Ranges and the need for the
proper conservation of the same in the States of Delhi,
Haryana, Gujarat and Rajasthan.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NARENDRA PRASAD
Date: 2025.11.20
18:32:32 IST
Reason:
2. The Aravali Range spanning across the aforesaid four
States is one of the oldest geological features on planet Earth.
1
It is one of the oldest fold mountains in India. It is rich in
wildlife, flora and fauna, and significantly influences the
climate and biodiversity across North India.
3.
The scientific assessments of the Aravali Range
establish the fact that the Aravali ecosystem acts as a “green
barrier” and forms an effective “shield” against desertification
by preventing the eastward spread of the Thar Desert towards
the Indo-Gangetic plains, Haryana and western Uttar Pradesh.
REVENTION OF ESERTIFICATION AND AND EGRADATION
P D L D
4. The United Nations Convention on Combat
1 th
Desertification was ratified by India on 17 December 1996.
5. Article 4 of the said Convention requires the States,
which are parties to it, to inter-alia adopt an integrated
approach to address the physical, biological and socio-
economic aspects of desertification, promote the conservation
of land and water resources as they relate to desertification,
and to determine institutional mechanisms for the same.
6. As per Article 5 of the said Convention, India as a
signatory to the UNCCD, is required to strengthen the existing
laws, enact new laws as may be needed, and undertake long-
1
Hereinafter, “UNCCD”.
2
term policy measures and action programmes to combat
desertification.
7. A perusal of Articles 10(2)(c) and 10(4) of the said
Convention would reveal that national action programmes in
this regard are required to be framed and particular attention
must be given to preventive measures for lands that are not
yet degraded, or which are only slightly degraded.
8. In order to give effect to its commitments under the
UNCCD, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate
2
Change issued a National Action Plan to Combat
Desertification and Land Degradation through Forestry
Interventions in 2023. The said Plan highlights the need for a
synergistic and convergent implementation of eco-restoration
initiatives in the country.
9. In recognition of the ecological importance of the
Aravali Ranges, the MoEF&CC has also launched the “Aravali
Green Wall Project” , an initiative aimed at restoring degraded
land, preventing desertification, enhancing green cover and
improving the ecological health of the Aravali landscape.
2
Hereinafter, “MoEF&CC”.
3
10. These cumulative obligations in international law
require that a uniform and streamlined approach be taken
towards the preservation and restoration of the Aravali
ecosystem including regulation of exploitation of the Aravali
Hills in a scientific and sustainable manner, guided by the
precautionary principle.
ROCEEDINGS BEFORE THIS OURT
P C
11. This Court is seized of the issues with regard to the
Aravali Hills and Ranges in two sets of proceedings. The first
3
is in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Others and the
second one is in T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad v. Union
4
of India and Others .
12. When T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad was listed
th
before this Court on 10 January 2024, an issue arose for
consideration as to whether some of the mining activities were
falling in the Aravali Hills or beyond it.
13. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State of
Rajasthan on that day had raised an issue as to whether the
classification between the Aravali Hills and Aravali Ranges,
3
WP(C) No.4677 of 1985
4
WP(C) No.202 of 1995
4
insofar as the mining activities are concerned, needs to be
finally decided by this Court.
14. On similar lines, the learned Amicus Curiae had also
raised an issue as to whether continuation of the mining
activities in Aravali Hills and Ranges was in the larger public
interest or not. The learned Amicus had therefore suggested
that it will be appropriate if all the issues with regard to the
Aravali Hills and Ranges be examined by the Central
5
Empowered Committee and directions be issued by this Court
in that regard.
th
15. We had, therefore, vide our order dated 10 January
2024 requested the CEC to examine as to whether the
classification of Aravali Hills and Ranges insofar as permitting
mining is concerned, needs to be continued or not. We had
also requested the CEC to take on board the experts in geology
before finalising its report.
16. Vide the said order, this Court also noticed that the
issues with regard to the mining in Aravali Hills and Ranges
in the State of Haryana were placed before another Bench of
this Court hearing M.C. Mehta and the issues with
(supra)
5
“Hereinafter, “CEC”.
5
regard to mining in Aravali Hills and Ranges in the State of
Rajasthan was being considered by this Court in the present
proceedings. We had, therefore, directed that both the matters
be placed before the then Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for
placing the same before one and the same Bench so as to avoid
any conflicting order(s).
17. In pursuance to the order passed by this Court on
th th
10 January 2024, the CEC submitted its report on 7 March
2024 (CEC Report No.3 of 2024).
18. It will be relevant to refer to the recommendations
made by the CEC in its report i.e. , CEC Report No. 3 of 2024,
which read thus:
“ I. RECOMMENDATIONS
i) Mapping of the entire Aravalli Hill Range should be
undertaken and completed within a period of six
months by the Forest Survey of India, as per the
norms followed for the State of Rajasthan. The
National CAMPA may be directed to release funds
required for the mapping purpose. All the mapped
areas should be geo-tagged.
ii) Macro-level EIA study of all mining affected
districts of Rajasthan falling in Aravalli Hill Ranges
should be done by ICFRE and/or any other
competent national level central government
institution as was done in case of Karnataka in
compliance of the orders of this Hon'ble Court in
WP(C) 562/2009 dated 05.08.2011. The level of
mineral extraction should also be analysed along
with EIA study, on the basis of local requirement of
6
minerals, available infrastructure and environmental
concerns. This study can be completed in six months
period. The funds can be made available by MoEFCC
from the National CAMPA. Till this exercise is
completed no new mining leases or renewals of old
mining leases should be allowed in the Aravalli Hill
Ranges.
iii) Mining should be strictly prohibited in following
areas falling under such mapped Aravalli Hill Range:
a) Protected Areas including Tiger
Reserves declared under Wild Life
Protection Act 1972.
b) where ESZs of protected areas
mentioned in (i) above have been notified -
within ESZ and up to 1 km from the
boundary of these ESZ; and within 10 kms
of boundary of protected areas mentioned
in (i) where ESZ has not been notified.
c) all identified Tiger Corridors.
d) within 2 km radius/boundary of
perennial water bodies and wetlands
identified and notified as Ramsar Sites the
wetlands notified as per provisions laid
under Rule 3(b) of the wetlands
(Conservation and Management) Rules,
2017.
e) all areas where plantations have been
raised with funds from any government or
agency.
f) all those minerals where mining disturbs
larger volume of minerals and soils but
yields low revenue such as masonry stone.
g) areas which are falling within the NCR.
h) regions where there are proven or
potential water aquifers or aquifer
recharge areas or wherefrom groundwater
is sourced for irrigation and/or drinking
purposes.
7
i) Areas which have been identified as
DARK Zone by the Groundwater Board
such as Faridabad and Gurgaon.
j) within 10 km aerial distance on either
side of the inter- state boundary between
Rajasthan and Haryana States along
Aravali Hill range.
iv) All mining in forest areas falling in Aravali Hill
Ranges should be suspended and may be allowed
after completion of mapping of area and EIA study,
only in exceptional circumstances, and after due
permission from this Hon'ble Court.
v) The mining in other areas may be permitted only
after all the statutory clearances / approvals
including environmental clearance have been
obtained and renewals should also be done only after
grant of fresh environmental clearance.
vi) The States shall first identify all the abandoned
mining sites of area which exceeds one hectare, both
legal and illegal, within a period of six months.
Thereafter, the States shall prepare a site-specific
reclamation and rehabilitation plans for all these
sites and submit them along with the maps to the
CEC. Once these plans are approved, the States will
execute them in a time bound manner.
vii) Mines which have reached the groundwater level
should be closed to prevent destruction of
underground aquifers, wastage of water and
depleting of groundwater.
viii) The mining leases found to have been operated /
being operated without the requisite statutory
approvals/ permissions and/or found to have
exceeded permissible production limits and/or not
following the mining plan prescriptions should be
immediately closed and shall be liable to be
terminated. Also, no mining lease where any
condition of EC or any other statutory condition has
been violated, renewal should not be allowed in any
circumstances.
8
ix) Online Integrated Lease Management System
(ILMS) for computerized and network-based
management of mineral production and dispatch,
collection of royalty, issue of permit and generation
and submission of online reports involving mining
leases and crusher operations, on the lines being
followed by the State Government of Karnataka
should be implemented immediately.
x) The licenses to stone crushers may be given on the
basis of quantity of raw mineral available in the area
to prevent illegal mining and permit sustainable
mining as has been permitted by this Hon'ble Court
for the wood based industries (saw mills and plywood
factories).
xi) No crusher shall be located within 10 km. aerial
distance from the boundary of Aravalli Hill Range.
Clusters may be located in a cluster similar to an
industrial estate where all inward coming raw
material and outgoing finished/ processed product is
controlled and regulated on real time basis.
xii) Use of explosives in mining should be
discouraged and may be allowed where Indian
Bureau of Mines (IBM) certifies that its use is
essentially required.
xiii) Regular biennial evaluation of the cumulative
impacts of existing and proposed mining activities in
the entire Aravalli region should be ensured to
prevent exceeding the ecosystem's carrying capacity
xiv)Independent and transparent environmental
monitoring mechanisms should be established
preferably under the chairmanship of Chief Secretary
of the state to ensure compliance of all regulations
and also action taken where there are non-
compliances.
xv) In districts involving heavy mining a District Task
Force of Revenue, Forest, Police and Mining
Department should be constituted to control illegal
mining.”
9
19. In the meantime, in pursuance to the order passed by
th
this Court dated 10 January 2024, the then Hon’ble Chief
Justice of India constituted a Special Bench comprising of
B.R. Gavai and Abhay S. Oka, JJ. (as they then were).
th
20. Upon perusal of the report of the CEC dated 7 March
th
2024, this Court by an order dated 9 May 2024 passed in
M.C. Mehta (supra) taken along with the present proceedings,
found that the issue with regard to mining activities in the
Aravali Hills and Ranges needs to be addressed jointly by the
MoEF&CC as well as all the four States i.e. , National Capital
Territory of Delhi and States of Rajasthan, Haryana and
Gujarat.
21. Pertinently, this Court vide the aforesaid order also
noticed that one of the major issues with regard to the illegal
mining was on account of different definitions of “Aravali
Hills/Ranges” , as adopted by the different States.
We, therefore, directed that a committee be constituted for
6
providing a uniform definition of the Aravali Hills and Ranges.
6
Hereinafter, “Committee”.
10
22. It will be relevant to refer to the entire order passed by
th
this Court on 9 May 2024, which reads thus:
1. Since certain matters from State of Rajasthan with
regard to mining in Aravalli Ranges and Hills were
pending before the Bench presided over by one of us
(B.R. Gavai, J.) and other matters from State of
Haryana were pending before the Bench presided
over by one of us (Abhay S. Oka, J.), the matter was
referred to the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India with
an observation that it will be appropriate that all the
matters are heard together so that the issues are
addressed commonly.
2. Accordingly, a Special Bench consisting of the two
of us has been constituted under the orders of the
Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India.
3. There are certain issues with regard to illegal
mining as well as mining under the permissions
granted by the States in Aravalli Hills/Ranges.
One of the major issues is with regard to the
different definitions of “Aravalli Hills/Ranges”, as
adopted by different States. The learned Amicus
Curiae states that insofar as the State of Haryana
is concerned, there is not even a definition of
Aravalli hills and ranges.
4. The Central Empowered Committee (CEC) has
submitted its Report No.3/2024, wherein certain
aspects have been pointed out. The Report also
points out various illegal mining activities carried
out throughout the State of Rajastan, district
wise details have been given with regard to the
areas under illegal mining.
5. In the report of the CEC, a report prepared by
the FSI is annexed. As per the Report of the FSI
the definition of Aravalli hills has been given as
the hill as well as the uniform 100 meter wide
buffer surrounding the downside of the hills.
6. We find that the issue with regard to the mining
activities in the Aravalli Hills and Ranges needs
11
to be addressed jointly by the Ministry of
Environment, Forest and Climate Change
(MoEFCC) as well as all the four State
Governments i.e. the Government of National
Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) and the States
of Rajasthan, Haryana and Gujarat.
We, therefore, direct that a Committee be
7.
constituted comprising of the following
officers/officials to have a uniform definition of
the Aravalli hills and ranges:-
i. Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forest
and Climate Change, Government of India.
ii. Secretaries of the Department of Forests,
Government of National Capital Territory of
Delhi and the States of Haryana, Rajasthan and
Gujarat.
iii. A representative of the Forest Survey of
India.
iv. A representative of the Central Empowered
Committee.
v. A representative of the Geological Survey of
India.
vi. Joint Secretary, Ministry of Environment,
Forest and Climate Change, Government of
India, shall be the convenor of the Committee.
8. The said Committee shall submit its report within
a period of two months from today.
9. In the meantime, we also issue the following
directions, as suggested by Shri P. Parameshwar,
learned Amicus Curiae, to which Shri Tushar Mehta,
learned Solicitor General of India appearing for the
State of Haryana and Shri K.M. Natraj, learned
Additional Solicitor General of India appearing for the
State of Rajasthan, do not have any objection:-
i. Direct the Union of India through the
MoEFCC, State of Rajasthan, State of
Haryana and GNCTD to file affidavits with
details comments on the CEC Report
12
No.3/2024 and also the issues identified
hereinabove.
ii. The States of Haryana and Rajasthan
should specifically indicate what steps for
compliance of 15 (fifteen)
Judgments/Orders of this Court’s have
been taken by the respective States.
iii. The States of Haryana and Rajasthan
should specifically state what action has
been taken on the CAG/CEC Reports on
illegal mining and whether prosecution
under the relevant State Laws and
Recovery Process has been undertaken.
iv. The State of Rajasthan to specifically
state the actions taken pursuant to the
FSI Report dated 22.02.2018 where illegal
mining polygons have been identified.
v. The State of Rajasthan be directed to
reply to the FSI Report submitted to this
Court pursuant to Order dated
19.02.2010. The FSI Report dated
25.08.2010 and the CEC Report thereon
dated 25.10.2010 were shared with the
State of Rajasthan way back in 2010.
vi. The States of Rajasthan and Haryana
shall also state the extent and mapping of
all boundaries of mining areas (mentioned
in the mining leases) within the area of the
State.
10. Shri K. Parameshwar, learned Amicus Curiae,
has further submitted that until further orders are
passed by this Court, no fresh mining leases or
renewal of existing mining leases should be permitted
in Aravalli Ranges and Hills in the States of Haryana
and Rajasthan.
11. The said suggestion is opposed by Shri Tushar
Mehta, learned Solicitor General of India and Shri
K.M. Natraj, learned Additional Solicitor General of
India and Shri A.N.S. Nadkarni, learned senior
13
counsel appearing for the Federation of Associations
of Mining in Rajasthan. It is submitted that millions
of labourers are dependent upon the mining activities
carried out in these States. It is submitted that if the
order, as sought by the learned Amicus Curiae is
passed, it would have a cascading effect on the
livelihood of millions of labourers.
12. According to our experience and as has been
pointed out by this Court, in the judgment of this
Court dated 10.11.2021 passed in C.A. No.3661-
3662/2020, a total ban on mining is not conducive
even to the interest of the environment, inasmuch as
it gives scope for illegal mining.
13. In that view of the matter, to balance the
competing interest, we find that the following
direction would subserve the purpose:-
“Until further orders, though all the States
in which Aravalli Ranges and Hills are
situated would be at liberty to consider
and process the applications for grant of
mining leases and also for renewal thereof
including obtaining statutory clearances
from the various authorities, no final
permission shall be granted for mining in
the Aravalli Hills/Ranges, as defined in the
FSI Report dated 25.08.2010, without
permission from this Court.”
14. Needless to state that this order in no way shall
be construed as prohibiting the legal mining
activities which are being carried out in accordance
with the valid permits/licences.
15. Needless further to state that our orders are
restricted only to the mining in the Aravalli
hills/ranges.”
[Emphasis supplied]
14
23. It appears that thereafter the matter was adjourned
from time to time so as to enable the Committee constituted
th
as per the order dated 9 May 2024 to submit its report.
th
24.
When the matter was, thereafter, listed on 12 August
2025, by way of last chance, this Court had granted two more
months’ time so as to enable the Committee to submit its
report.
25. Accordingly, the Committee submitted its report via
rd
the MoEF&CC on 3 October 2025.
26. We have extensively heard Mr. K. Parameshwar,
learned Amicus Curiae , Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned
Additional Solicitor General appearing for the MoEF&CC,
Mr. Balbir Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
State of Haryana and Mr. K.M. Natraj, learned ASG appearing
for the State of Rajasthan.
27. The learned Amicus submitted that the Forest Survey
7 th
of India, vide its Status Report dated 19 August 2010
th
in pursuance to the order of this Court dated 19 February
2010 in the present proceedings, has defined the Aravalis as
under:
7
Hereinafter, “FSI”.
15
“(i) slope >3°, (ii) foothill buffer = 100m, (iii) inter hill
distance or valley width= 500m and (iv) the area
enclosed by above defined hills from all sides.”
28. The learned Amicus submitted that the FSI is an expert
body in the field and there should have been no reason for the
Committee to not accept the definition as proposed by the FSI
and substitute it with another definition.
29. The learned Amicus placed before this Court the report
of the Committee and how the Aravali Hills and Ranges have
been sought to be defined for the purposes of mining.
The same is as under:
“ 7. Recommendations and Way Forward
7.1 Definition of Aravali Hills and Ranges in the
context of mining
7.1.1 The committee recommends following
operational definition of Aravali Hills and Ranges in
the context of mining:
Aravali Hills : Any landform located in the Aravali
districts, having an elevation of 100 metres or more
from the local relief, shall be termed as Aravali Hills.
For this purpose, the local relief shall be determined
with reference to the lowest contour line encircling
the landform, as per Para-5.1.1 above. The entire
landform lying within the area enclosed by such
lowest contour, whether actual or extended
notionally, together with the Hill, its supporting
slopes and associated landforms irrespective of their
gradient, shall be deemed to constitute part of the
Aravali Hills.
Aravali Range : Two or more Aravali Hills, as defined
at Para- 5.1.2 above, located within the proximity of
16
500m from each other, measured from the outermost
point on the boundary of the lowest contour line on
either side forms Aravali Range. The area between the
two Aravali hills is determined by first creating
buffers with a width equal to the minimum distance
between the lowest contour lines of both hills. An
intersection line is then generated between the two
buffer polygons by joining the intersection of both
buffer polygons. Finally, two lines, are drawn
perpendicularly from both endpoints of the
intersection line and extended till it intersects the
lowest contour line of both hills. The entire area of
landforms falling between the lowest contour lines of
these Hills as explained, along with associated
features such as Hills, Hillocks, supporting slopes,
etc., shall also be included as part of Aravali Range.”
30. The learned Amicus submitted that if the definition as
recommended by the Committee is accepted, all the hills below
the height of 100 metres would be opened up for mining and
as a result the Aravali Hills and Ranges would lose their
continuity and integrity. He, therefore, submitted that if the
definition as suggested by the Committee is accepted, it would
totally endanger the environment and ecology of the
mountains.
31. As against this, Ms. Bhati, learned ASG submitted that
if the definition of Aravali Hills and Ranges as suggested by
the FSI is accepted, it would exclude large areas from the
Aravali Hills and Ranges. She, however, submitted that the
17
definition as suggested by the Committee is adopted, a larger
area would be included as part of the Aravali Hills and Ranges.
32. Ms. Bhati further submitted that the Committee itself
has recommended that except in case of critical, strategic and
atomic minerals, the mining activities would be prohibited in
the core/inviolate areas. She further submitted that the
Committee has made various recommendations in order to
prevent rampant mining and permit only sustainable mining.
33. No doubt that the Committee, with the assistance of
the technical committee, has done a commendable work.
However, recently we had an occasion to consider a matter
with regard to Saranda Wildlife Sanctuary as part of the
present proceedings. In the said matter, we had noticed that
the MoEF&CC had got a study done by an expert body namely
8
Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education .
On the basis of the said study, the Management Plan for
9
Sustainable Mining in Saranda and Chaibasa, Singhbhum
District, Jharkhand was carried out. In the said matter, we
had noticed that ICFRE’s geo-referenced ecological
assessment enabled the identification of areas suitable for
8
Hereinafter, “ICFRE”.
9
Hereinafter, “MPSM”.
18
mining, areas requiring strict ecological protection and zones
where biodiversity values necessitated conservation priority.
th
34. Vide the judgment and order dated 13 November
2025 in the present proceedings to which two of us (Gavai, CJI
and K. Vinod Chandran, J.) were a party, this Court has
directed the Wildlife Sanctuary to be established insofar as the
compartments which were identified as conservation areas/no
mining zones. However, this Court explicitly excluded the
compartments wherein the MPSM found that sustainable
mining could be permitted.
35. It is not in dispute that the Aravali Hills and Ranges
also exhibit similar ecological fragility, and it is also an area
comprising of significant biodiversity. Not only that it acts as
a green barrier thereby preventing desertification in the Indo-
Gangetic plains, Haryana and western Uttar Pradesh.
36. No doubt that as stated by the learned ASG, the
MoEF&CC had decided to develop a green corridor/green wall.
However, the note submitted by the learned ASG would itself
reveal that the Aravali mountain range faces “escalating
degradation pressures”. The note further states that
deforestation, unsustainable grazing, illegal and excessive
19
mining, and urban encroachment have contributed to
widespread ecosystem damage. It further states that forest
cover has declined significantly in the last two decades, desert
sands are moving eastwards, and aquifers have been depleted
or damaged by mining activities. It further states that these
cumulative impacts undermine not only biodiversity but also
water security and climate resilience. It has further been
stated that all these affect the livelihoods of communities
dependent on the landscape's resources.
37. Taking all these aspects into consideration, we are of
the considered view that while we propose to accept the report
of the Committee constituted by the MoEF&CC pursuant to
the orders passed by this Court, it would also be in the best
interest of the ecology and environment that a similar study
as was conducted for Saranda and Chaibasa, Singhbhum
District, Jharkhand by ICFRE is also conducted for Aravali
Hills and Ranges. No doubt that the Committee has taken care
by recommending prohibition of mining in core/inviolate areas
except in cases of critical, strategic and atomic minerals.
However, we find that it would be appropriate that such a
20
study be carried out taking into consideration the geological
importance of the Aravali mountain ranges.
38. It will be relevant to refer to paragraphs 7.3 and 7.4 of
the report of the Committee, which read thus:
“ 7.3 Regulation of Mining in Aravali Hills and
Ranges
7.3.1 The Committee recommends that to ensure
sustainable mining in the Aravalli Hills and ranges,
no new mining lease, except in case of critical,
strategic and atomic minerals (Atomic minerals
notified in part B and Critical and Strategic minerals
notified in Part D of the First Schedule of the MMDR
Act) and minerals listed in the Seventh Schedule of
the MMDR Act 1957 may be granted in Aravalli Hills
and Ranges as marked in the SOI Toposheets as per
the procedure described above
7.3.2 Regulation of operation of existing mines in
Aruvalli Hills and Ranges: The Committee
recommends that in case of ongoing mining leases
falling within in the area of Aravalli Hills and Ranges
as defined above, as well as for the renewal of such
mining leases, a team of experts comprising officers
of State Forest Department, Mining and Geology
Department, Local Administration and State
Pollution Control Board (SPCB) and such domain
experts as may be required, shall visit the concerned
mine to take stock of the compliance of EC/CTO
conditions and environmental safeguards followed by
the Mines for conservation of Aravalli Hills/Ranges
and prescribe necessary environmental safeguards
as deemed appropriate. The additional
environmental safeguard, as proposed by the
Committee, may be made a part of CTO conditions
and compliance thereof may be monitored by the
concerned SPCB.
21
7.4 Prohibition of Mining in Core/Inviolate Areas
7.4.1 Core/Inviolate areas may be designated in the
Aravalli Hills and Ranges for prohibiting mining in
them. For this purpose, following areas may be
designated as core/inviolate areas for the purpose of
mining:
i. Protected Areas, including tiger reserves
and all identified tiger corridors.
ii. Area covered under Draft or Final Eco
Sensitive Zone (ESZ)/Eco Sensitive Area
(ESA) notified under Section 3(2)(v) of the
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and
Section 5(1) of the Environment
(Protection) Rules, 1986
iii. For ESZs around Protected Areas, for
which proposals have been submitted by
the State Governments but are yet to be
notified as Draft/Final Notification by the
MoEFCC and for those, in which the
proposals are yet to be submitted by the
State Governments, the default ESZ shall
be regulated strictly as per the orders of
Hon'ble Supreme Court issued from time
to time in the matter of Writ Petition(s)
(Civil) No(s). 202/1995 Τ.Ν. Godavarman
Thirumulpad versus Union of India &
Ors.;
iv. No mining to be allowed within 1.0 km
of the boundary of Protected Area, even if
the boundary of ESZ is less than 1.0 km
from the boundary of the Protected Area.
v. Areas where plantations have been
raised with funds from CAMPA,
Government sources or under
international cooperation
vi. 500 m from the boundary of Ramsar
sites and Wetlands under Wetland
(Conservation & Management) Rules,
2017.”
22
39. We also appreciate the recommendations made by the
Committee for preventing illegal mining and permitting only
sustainable mining in the Aravali Hills and Ranges.
40.
However, taking all aspects of the matter into
consideration, especially the fact that the Aravali Hills and
Ranges harbour rich biodiversity, with twenty-two wildlife
sanctuaries, four tiger reserves, the Keoladeo National Park,
along with wetlands like Sultanpur, Sambhar, Siliserh, and
Asola Bhati, and aquifers that recharge river systems
including the ones at Chambal, Sabarmati, Luni, Mahi, and
Banas, it is more than appropriate that before permitting
further sustainable mining activities, the same are preceded
by preparation of an MPSM.
41. In this regard, Ms. Bhati, learned ASG, expressed an
apprehension that insofar as Saranda was concerned, it dealt
with a much smaller area. She further submitted that carrying
out an MPSM for such a huge area covered by the Aravali Hills
and Ranges, would take a much longer time and would be a
herculean task.
42. We are of the considered view that it may not be in the
interest of ecology and environment if further mining activities
23
are permitted to be carried out without a body of experts, such
as ICFRE, examining the issue of protection of the
conservation areas. The MPSM will provide adequate data on
the basis of geo-referenced ecological assessment and identify
the areas which have wildlife and other high eco-sensitive
areas, which are required to be conserved. The MPSM will also
provide data as to how sustainable mining is to be conducted.
43. The MPSM, for Saranda , had put up a specific question
as to whether diversion of one of the best natural virgin forest
areas in the country for a lease of 12 to 13 years for mining
activities, is really worthy and justified? It is not in dispute
that the Aravali Hills and Ranges are one of the oldest
geological features of planet Earth. The MPSM for Saranda has
emphasized the need for identification of critical wildlife
habitats, corridors linking critical wildlife habitats, rich forests
and such other important forest areas in Saranda Forest
which need to be protected and conserved for posterity and are
considered as ecologically important and may be considered
as inviolate for iron ore mining. Such areas have been notified
as Conservation Reserve/Corridors or Ecologically Sensitive
24
Areas in accordance with the provisions of the Wild Life
(Protection) Act, 1972 and the Environment (Protection) 1986 .
44. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that if such
an MPSM is carried out for the Aravali Hills and Ranges, it can
also identify the areas where sustainable mining activities
could be permitted.
45. We therefore find that it will be appropriate to prepare
a Management Plan, in the nature of MPSM for Sarandha, for
the Aravali Hills and Ranges.
46. The MoEF&CC, if necessary, can also consider
preparing MPSM for each of the districts in the Aravali Hills
and Ranges. However, while doing that, it should be ensured
that the continuity and integrity of the Aravali Hills and
Ranges is maintained.
47. Further, insofar as a ban on mining is concerned,
we do not propose to impose any such ban on the present legal
mining activities that are already being undertaken in the
Aravali Hills and Ranges.
48. This Court had on an earlier occasion noticed the ill
consequences of imposing a complete ban on mining activities
in the case of State of Bihar and Others v. Pawan Kumar
25
10
and Others , to which one of us (Gavai, J., as he then was)
was a party. A complete ban on mining could, as was seen in
the said case, lead to illegal mining activities being carried out,
creation of land/mining mafias and criminalisation.
49. We, however, clarify that mining activities already
being undertaken in the Aravali Hills and Ranges would be
carried out strictly in accordance with paragraph 8 of the
recommendations of the Committee’s Report.
50. In the result, we pass the following order:
(i) We accept the recommendations made by the Committee
with regard to the definition of Aravali Hills and Ranges
given by MoEF&CC;
(ii) We further accept the recommendations with regard to
the prohibition of mining in core/inviolate areas with
exception as carved out in paragraph 7.3.1 of the
Committee’s Report;
(iii) We also accept the recommendations for sustainable
mining in Aravali Hills and Ranges and the steps to be
taken for preventing illegal mining in Aravali Hills and
Ranges;
10
(2022) 2 SCC 348
26
(iv) We, however, direct the MoEF&CC to prepare a MPSM
through ICFRE for the entire Aravalis, i.e., understood as
the continuous geological ridge extending from Gujarat
to Delhi on the lines of the MPSM for Saranda and the
MPSM must:
a. Identify permissible areas for mining, ecologically
sensitive, conservation-critical and restoration-
priority areas within the Aravali landscape where
mining shall be strictly prohibited or permitted only
under exceptional and scientifically justified
circumstances;
b. Incorporate a thorough analysis of cumulative
environmental impacts and the ecological carrying
capacity of the region; and
c. Include detailed post-mining restoration and
rehabilitation measures.
(v) We further direct that till the MPSM is finalised by the
MoEF&CC through ICFRE, no new mining leases should
be granted;
(vi) We further direct that upon the MPSM being finalised by
MoEF&CC in consultation with the ICFRE, mining would
27
be permitted as per the MPSM only in those areas
wherein sustainable mining could be permitted; and
(vii) In the meantime, the mining activities in the mines which
are already in operation would be continued in strict
compliance with the recommendations made by the
Committee in paragraph 8 of its Report.
51. Since one of us (B.R. Gavai, CJI) is sitting in the
proceedings in W.P.(C) No.202/1995 for the last time, we feel
that it is our duty to place on record our deep appreciation for
Mr. K. Parameshwar, learned Amicus Curiae , who, for the last
three years has laboriously assisted this Court in passing
various judgments and orders for the protection and
conservation of environment, wildlife and ecology. We must
also place on record our deep appreciation for
Mr. M.V. Mukunda, Ms. Kanti, Ms. Raji Gururaj and
Mr. Shreenivas Patil, learned counsel, whose contribution in
assisting Mr. K. Parameshwar, learned Amicus Curiae is very
valuable. We must also place on record our appreciation for
Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Additional Solicitor General of
India, who has been representing the MoEF&CC in this matter
for a pro-active role and assisting this Court to find out the
28
solutions for protection and conservation of environment,
wildlife and ecology. We also place on record our appreciation
for Mr. Balbir Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
State of Haryana and Mr. K.M. Nataraj, learned Additional
Solicitor General of India appearing for the State of Rajasthan
in the present matter.
…………….................CJI
(B.R. GAVAI)
…................................J
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
…................................J
(N.V. ANJARIA)
NEW DELHI;
NOVEMBER 20, 2025.
29
2025 INSC 1338
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
INHERENT/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
IN RE : ISSUE RELATING TO DEFINITION OF ARAVALI
HILLS AND RANGES
I.A. NO.105701 OF 2024
(CEC REPORT NO. 03 OF 2024)
IN
WRIT PETITION (C) NO.202 OF 1995
IN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD
…PETITIONER
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS …RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
B.R. GAVAI, CJI
MPORTANCE OF RAVALIS
I A
1. In the present matter, we are concerned with the
definition of Aravali Hills and Ranges and the need for the
proper conservation of the same in the States of Delhi,
Haryana, Gujarat and Rajasthan.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NARENDRA PRASAD
Date: 2025.11.20
18:32:32 IST
Reason:
2. The Aravali Range spanning across the aforesaid four
States is one of the oldest geological features on planet Earth.
1
It is one of the oldest fold mountains in India. It is rich in
wildlife, flora and fauna, and significantly influences the
climate and biodiversity across North India.
3.
The scientific assessments of the Aravali Range
establish the fact that the Aravali ecosystem acts as a “green
barrier” and forms an effective “shield” against desertification
by preventing the eastward spread of the Thar Desert towards
the Indo-Gangetic plains, Haryana and western Uttar Pradesh.
REVENTION OF ESERTIFICATION AND AND EGRADATION
P D L D
4. The United Nations Convention on Combat
1 th
Desertification was ratified by India on 17 December 1996.
5. Article 4 of the said Convention requires the States,
which are parties to it, to inter-alia adopt an integrated
approach to address the physical, biological and socio-
economic aspects of desertification, promote the conservation
of land and water resources as they relate to desertification,
and to determine institutional mechanisms for the same.
6. As per Article 5 of the said Convention, India as a
signatory to the UNCCD, is required to strengthen the existing
laws, enact new laws as may be needed, and undertake long-
1
Hereinafter, “UNCCD”.
2
term policy measures and action programmes to combat
desertification.
7. A perusal of Articles 10(2)(c) and 10(4) of the said
Convention would reveal that national action programmes in
this regard are required to be framed and particular attention
must be given to preventive measures for lands that are not
yet degraded, or which are only slightly degraded.
8. In order to give effect to its commitments under the
UNCCD, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate
2
Change issued a National Action Plan to Combat
Desertification and Land Degradation through Forestry
Interventions in 2023. The said Plan highlights the need for a
synergistic and convergent implementation of eco-restoration
initiatives in the country.
9. In recognition of the ecological importance of the
Aravali Ranges, the MoEF&CC has also launched the “Aravali
Green Wall Project” , an initiative aimed at restoring degraded
land, preventing desertification, enhancing green cover and
improving the ecological health of the Aravali landscape.
2
Hereinafter, “MoEF&CC”.
3
10. These cumulative obligations in international law
require that a uniform and streamlined approach be taken
towards the preservation and restoration of the Aravali
ecosystem including regulation of exploitation of the Aravali
Hills in a scientific and sustainable manner, guided by the
precautionary principle.
ROCEEDINGS BEFORE THIS OURT
P C
11. This Court is seized of the issues with regard to the
Aravali Hills and Ranges in two sets of proceedings. The first
3
is in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Others and the
second one is in T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad v. Union
4
of India and Others .
12. When T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad was listed
th
before this Court on 10 January 2024, an issue arose for
consideration as to whether some of the mining activities were
falling in the Aravali Hills or beyond it.
13. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State of
Rajasthan on that day had raised an issue as to whether the
classification between the Aravali Hills and Aravali Ranges,
3
WP(C) No.4677 of 1985
4
WP(C) No.202 of 1995
4
insofar as the mining activities are concerned, needs to be
finally decided by this Court.
14. On similar lines, the learned Amicus Curiae had also
raised an issue as to whether continuation of the mining
activities in Aravali Hills and Ranges was in the larger public
interest or not. The learned Amicus had therefore suggested
that it will be appropriate if all the issues with regard to the
Aravali Hills and Ranges be examined by the Central
5
Empowered Committee and directions be issued by this Court
in that regard.
th
15. We had, therefore, vide our order dated 10 January
2024 requested the CEC to examine as to whether the
classification of Aravali Hills and Ranges insofar as permitting
mining is concerned, needs to be continued or not. We had
also requested the CEC to take on board the experts in geology
before finalising its report.
16. Vide the said order, this Court also noticed that the
issues with regard to the mining in Aravali Hills and Ranges
in the State of Haryana were placed before another Bench of
this Court hearing M.C. Mehta and the issues with
(supra)
5
“Hereinafter, “CEC”.
5
regard to mining in Aravali Hills and Ranges in the State of
Rajasthan was being considered by this Court in the present
proceedings. We had, therefore, directed that both the matters
be placed before the then Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for
placing the same before one and the same Bench so as to avoid
any conflicting order(s).
17. In pursuance to the order passed by this Court on
th th
10 January 2024, the CEC submitted its report on 7 March
2024 (CEC Report No.3 of 2024).
18. It will be relevant to refer to the recommendations
made by the CEC in its report i.e. , CEC Report No. 3 of 2024,
which read thus:
“ I. RECOMMENDATIONS
i) Mapping of the entire Aravalli Hill Range should be
undertaken and completed within a period of six
months by the Forest Survey of India, as per the
norms followed for the State of Rajasthan. The
National CAMPA may be directed to release funds
required for the mapping purpose. All the mapped
areas should be geo-tagged.
ii) Macro-level EIA study of all mining affected
districts of Rajasthan falling in Aravalli Hill Ranges
should be done by ICFRE and/or any other
competent national level central government
institution as was done in case of Karnataka in
compliance of the orders of this Hon'ble Court in
WP(C) 562/2009 dated 05.08.2011. The level of
mineral extraction should also be analysed along
with EIA study, on the basis of local requirement of
6
minerals, available infrastructure and environmental
concerns. This study can be completed in six months
period. The funds can be made available by MoEFCC
from the National CAMPA. Till this exercise is
completed no new mining leases or renewals of old
mining leases should be allowed in the Aravalli Hill
Ranges.
iii) Mining should be strictly prohibited in following
areas falling under such mapped Aravalli Hill Range:
a) Protected Areas including Tiger
Reserves declared under Wild Life
Protection Act 1972.
b) where ESZs of protected areas
mentioned in (i) above have been notified -
within ESZ and up to 1 km from the
boundary of these ESZ; and within 10 kms
of boundary of protected areas mentioned
in (i) where ESZ has not been notified.
c) all identified Tiger Corridors.
d) within 2 km radius/boundary of
perennial water bodies and wetlands
identified and notified as Ramsar Sites the
wetlands notified as per provisions laid
under Rule 3(b) of the wetlands
(Conservation and Management) Rules,
2017.
e) all areas where plantations have been
raised with funds from any government or
agency.
f) all those minerals where mining disturbs
larger volume of minerals and soils but
yields low revenue such as masonry stone.
g) areas which are falling within the NCR.
h) regions where there are proven or
potential water aquifers or aquifer
recharge areas or wherefrom groundwater
is sourced for irrigation and/or drinking
purposes.
7
i) Areas which have been identified as
DARK Zone by the Groundwater Board
such as Faridabad and Gurgaon.
j) within 10 km aerial distance on either
side of the inter- state boundary between
Rajasthan and Haryana States along
Aravali Hill range.
iv) All mining in forest areas falling in Aravali Hill
Ranges should be suspended and may be allowed
after completion of mapping of area and EIA study,
only in exceptional circumstances, and after due
permission from this Hon'ble Court.
v) The mining in other areas may be permitted only
after all the statutory clearances / approvals
including environmental clearance have been
obtained and renewals should also be done only after
grant of fresh environmental clearance.
vi) The States shall first identify all the abandoned
mining sites of area which exceeds one hectare, both
legal and illegal, within a period of six months.
Thereafter, the States shall prepare a site-specific
reclamation and rehabilitation plans for all these
sites and submit them along with the maps to the
CEC. Once these plans are approved, the States will
execute them in a time bound manner.
vii) Mines which have reached the groundwater level
should be closed to prevent destruction of
underground aquifers, wastage of water and
depleting of groundwater.
viii) The mining leases found to have been operated /
being operated without the requisite statutory
approvals/ permissions and/or found to have
exceeded permissible production limits and/or not
following the mining plan prescriptions should be
immediately closed and shall be liable to be
terminated. Also, no mining lease where any
condition of EC or any other statutory condition has
been violated, renewal should not be allowed in any
circumstances.
8
ix) Online Integrated Lease Management System
(ILMS) for computerized and network-based
management of mineral production and dispatch,
collection of royalty, issue of permit and generation
and submission of online reports involving mining
leases and crusher operations, on the lines being
followed by the State Government of Karnataka
should be implemented immediately.
x) The licenses to stone crushers may be given on the
basis of quantity of raw mineral available in the area
to prevent illegal mining and permit sustainable
mining as has been permitted by this Hon'ble Court
for the wood based industries (saw mills and plywood
factories).
xi) No crusher shall be located within 10 km. aerial
distance from the boundary of Aravalli Hill Range.
Clusters may be located in a cluster similar to an
industrial estate where all inward coming raw
material and outgoing finished/ processed product is
controlled and regulated on real time basis.
xii) Use of explosives in mining should be
discouraged and may be allowed where Indian
Bureau of Mines (IBM) certifies that its use is
essentially required.
xiii) Regular biennial evaluation of the cumulative
impacts of existing and proposed mining activities in
the entire Aravalli region should be ensured to
prevent exceeding the ecosystem's carrying capacity
xiv)Independent and transparent environmental
monitoring mechanisms should be established
preferably under the chairmanship of Chief Secretary
of the state to ensure compliance of all regulations
and also action taken where there are non-
compliances.
xv) In districts involving heavy mining a District Task
Force of Revenue, Forest, Police and Mining
Department should be constituted to control illegal
mining.”
9
19. In the meantime, in pursuance to the order passed by
th
this Court dated 10 January 2024, the then Hon’ble Chief
Justice of India constituted a Special Bench comprising of
B.R. Gavai and Abhay S. Oka, JJ. (as they then were).
th
20. Upon perusal of the report of the CEC dated 7 March
th
2024, this Court by an order dated 9 May 2024 passed in
M.C. Mehta (supra) taken along with the present proceedings,
found that the issue with regard to mining activities in the
Aravali Hills and Ranges needs to be addressed jointly by the
MoEF&CC as well as all the four States i.e. , National Capital
Territory of Delhi and States of Rajasthan, Haryana and
Gujarat.
21. Pertinently, this Court vide the aforesaid order also
noticed that one of the major issues with regard to the illegal
mining was on account of different definitions of “Aravali
Hills/Ranges” , as adopted by the different States.
We, therefore, directed that a committee be constituted for
6
providing a uniform definition of the Aravali Hills and Ranges.
6
Hereinafter, “Committee”.
10
22. It will be relevant to refer to the entire order passed by
th
this Court on 9 May 2024, which reads thus:
1. Since certain matters from State of Rajasthan with
regard to mining in Aravalli Ranges and Hills were
pending before the Bench presided over by one of us
(B.R. Gavai, J.) and other matters from State of
Haryana were pending before the Bench presided
over by one of us (Abhay S. Oka, J.), the matter was
referred to the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India with
an observation that it will be appropriate that all the
matters are heard together so that the issues are
addressed commonly.
2. Accordingly, a Special Bench consisting of the two
of us has been constituted under the orders of the
Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India.
3. There are certain issues with regard to illegal
mining as well as mining under the permissions
granted by the States in Aravalli Hills/Ranges.
One of the major issues is with regard to the
different definitions of “Aravalli Hills/Ranges”, as
adopted by different States. The learned Amicus
Curiae states that insofar as the State of Haryana
is concerned, there is not even a definition of
Aravalli hills and ranges.
4. The Central Empowered Committee (CEC) has
submitted its Report No.3/2024, wherein certain
aspects have been pointed out. The Report also
points out various illegal mining activities carried
out throughout the State of Rajastan, district
wise details have been given with regard to the
areas under illegal mining.
5. In the report of the CEC, a report prepared by
the FSI is annexed. As per the Report of the FSI
the definition of Aravalli hills has been given as
the hill as well as the uniform 100 meter wide
buffer surrounding the downside of the hills.
6. We find that the issue with regard to the mining
activities in the Aravalli Hills and Ranges needs
11
to be addressed jointly by the Ministry of
Environment, Forest and Climate Change
(MoEFCC) as well as all the four State
Governments i.e. the Government of National
Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) and the States
of Rajasthan, Haryana and Gujarat.
We, therefore, direct that a Committee be
7.
constituted comprising of the following
officers/officials to have a uniform definition of
the Aravalli hills and ranges:-
i. Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forest
and Climate Change, Government of India.
ii. Secretaries of the Department of Forests,
Government of National Capital Territory of
Delhi and the States of Haryana, Rajasthan and
Gujarat.
iii. A representative of the Forest Survey of
India.
iv. A representative of the Central Empowered
Committee.
v. A representative of the Geological Survey of
India.
vi. Joint Secretary, Ministry of Environment,
Forest and Climate Change, Government of
India, shall be the convenor of the Committee.
8. The said Committee shall submit its report within
a period of two months from today.
9. In the meantime, we also issue the following
directions, as suggested by Shri P. Parameshwar,
learned Amicus Curiae, to which Shri Tushar Mehta,
learned Solicitor General of India appearing for the
State of Haryana and Shri K.M. Natraj, learned
Additional Solicitor General of India appearing for the
State of Rajasthan, do not have any objection:-
i. Direct the Union of India through the
MoEFCC, State of Rajasthan, State of
Haryana and GNCTD to file affidavits with
details comments on the CEC Report
12
No.3/2024 and also the issues identified
hereinabove.
ii. The States of Haryana and Rajasthan
should specifically indicate what steps for
compliance of 15 (fifteen)
Judgments/Orders of this Court’s have
been taken by the respective States.
iii. The States of Haryana and Rajasthan
should specifically state what action has
been taken on the CAG/CEC Reports on
illegal mining and whether prosecution
under the relevant State Laws and
Recovery Process has been undertaken.
iv. The State of Rajasthan to specifically
state the actions taken pursuant to the
FSI Report dated 22.02.2018 where illegal
mining polygons have been identified.
v. The State of Rajasthan be directed to
reply to the FSI Report submitted to this
Court pursuant to Order dated
19.02.2010. The FSI Report dated
25.08.2010 and the CEC Report thereon
dated 25.10.2010 were shared with the
State of Rajasthan way back in 2010.
vi. The States of Rajasthan and Haryana
shall also state the extent and mapping of
all boundaries of mining areas (mentioned
in the mining leases) within the area of the
State.
10. Shri K. Parameshwar, learned Amicus Curiae,
has further submitted that until further orders are
passed by this Court, no fresh mining leases or
renewal of existing mining leases should be permitted
in Aravalli Ranges and Hills in the States of Haryana
and Rajasthan.
11. The said suggestion is opposed by Shri Tushar
Mehta, learned Solicitor General of India and Shri
K.M. Natraj, learned Additional Solicitor General of
India and Shri A.N.S. Nadkarni, learned senior
13
counsel appearing for the Federation of Associations
of Mining in Rajasthan. It is submitted that millions
of labourers are dependent upon the mining activities
carried out in these States. It is submitted that if the
order, as sought by the learned Amicus Curiae is
passed, it would have a cascading effect on the
livelihood of millions of labourers.
12. According to our experience and as has been
pointed out by this Court, in the judgment of this
Court dated 10.11.2021 passed in C.A. No.3661-
3662/2020, a total ban on mining is not conducive
even to the interest of the environment, inasmuch as
it gives scope for illegal mining.
13. In that view of the matter, to balance the
competing interest, we find that the following
direction would subserve the purpose:-
“Until further orders, though all the States
in which Aravalli Ranges and Hills are
situated would be at liberty to consider
and process the applications for grant of
mining leases and also for renewal thereof
including obtaining statutory clearances
from the various authorities, no final
permission shall be granted for mining in
the Aravalli Hills/Ranges, as defined in the
FSI Report dated 25.08.2010, without
permission from this Court.”
14. Needless to state that this order in no way shall
be construed as prohibiting the legal mining
activities which are being carried out in accordance
with the valid permits/licences.
15. Needless further to state that our orders are
restricted only to the mining in the Aravalli
hills/ranges.”
[Emphasis supplied]
14
23. It appears that thereafter the matter was adjourned
from time to time so as to enable the Committee constituted
th
as per the order dated 9 May 2024 to submit its report.
th
24.
When the matter was, thereafter, listed on 12 August
2025, by way of last chance, this Court had granted two more
months’ time so as to enable the Committee to submit its
report.
25. Accordingly, the Committee submitted its report via
rd
the MoEF&CC on 3 October 2025.
26. We have extensively heard Mr. K. Parameshwar,
learned Amicus Curiae , Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned
Additional Solicitor General appearing for the MoEF&CC,
Mr. Balbir Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
State of Haryana and Mr. K.M. Natraj, learned ASG appearing
for the State of Rajasthan.
27. The learned Amicus submitted that the Forest Survey
7 th
of India, vide its Status Report dated 19 August 2010
th
in pursuance to the order of this Court dated 19 February
2010 in the present proceedings, has defined the Aravalis as
under:
7
Hereinafter, “FSI”.
15
“(i) slope >3°, (ii) foothill buffer = 100m, (iii) inter hill
distance or valley width= 500m and (iv) the area
enclosed by above defined hills from all sides.”
28. The learned Amicus submitted that the FSI is an expert
body in the field and there should have been no reason for the
Committee to not accept the definition as proposed by the FSI
and substitute it with another definition.
29. The learned Amicus placed before this Court the report
of the Committee and how the Aravali Hills and Ranges have
been sought to be defined for the purposes of mining.
The same is as under:
“ 7. Recommendations and Way Forward
7.1 Definition of Aravali Hills and Ranges in the
context of mining
7.1.1 The committee recommends following
operational definition of Aravali Hills and Ranges in
the context of mining:
Aravali Hills : Any landform located in the Aravali
districts, having an elevation of 100 metres or more
from the local relief, shall be termed as Aravali Hills.
For this purpose, the local relief shall be determined
with reference to the lowest contour line encircling
the landform, as per Para-5.1.1 above. The entire
landform lying within the area enclosed by such
lowest contour, whether actual or extended
notionally, together with the Hill, its supporting
slopes and associated landforms irrespective of their
gradient, shall be deemed to constitute part of the
Aravali Hills.
Aravali Range : Two or more Aravali Hills, as defined
at Para- 5.1.2 above, located within the proximity of
16
500m from each other, measured from the outermost
point on the boundary of the lowest contour line on
either side forms Aravali Range. The area between the
two Aravali hills is determined by first creating
buffers with a width equal to the minimum distance
between the lowest contour lines of both hills. An
intersection line is then generated between the two
buffer polygons by joining the intersection of both
buffer polygons. Finally, two lines, are drawn
perpendicularly from both endpoints of the
intersection line and extended till it intersects the
lowest contour line of both hills. The entire area of
landforms falling between the lowest contour lines of
these Hills as explained, along with associated
features such as Hills, Hillocks, supporting slopes,
etc., shall also be included as part of Aravali Range.”
30. The learned Amicus submitted that if the definition as
recommended by the Committee is accepted, all the hills below
the height of 100 metres would be opened up for mining and
as a result the Aravali Hills and Ranges would lose their
continuity and integrity. He, therefore, submitted that if the
definition as suggested by the Committee is accepted, it would
totally endanger the environment and ecology of the
mountains.
31. As against this, Ms. Bhati, learned ASG submitted that
if the definition of Aravali Hills and Ranges as suggested by
the FSI is accepted, it would exclude large areas from the
Aravali Hills and Ranges. She, however, submitted that the
17
definition as suggested by the Committee is adopted, a larger
area would be included as part of the Aravali Hills and Ranges.
32. Ms. Bhati further submitted that the Committee itself
has recommended that except in case of critical, strategic and
atomic minerals, the mining activities would be prohibited in
the core/inviolate areas. She further submitted that the
Committee has made various recommendations in order to
prevent rampant mining and permit only sustainable mining.
33. No doubt that the Committee, with the assistance of
the technical committee, has done a commendable work.
However, recently we had an occasion to consider a matter
with regard to Saranda Wildlife Sanctuary as part of the
present proceedings. In the said matter, we had noticed that
the MoEF&CC had got a study done by an expert body namely
8
Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education .
On the basis of the said study, the Management Plan for
9
Sustainable Mining in Saranda and Chaibasa, Singhbhum
District, Jharkhand was carried out. In the said matter, we
had noticed that ICFRE’s geo-referenced ecological
assessment enabled the identification of areas suitable for
8
Hereinafter, “ICFRE”.
9
Hereinafter, “MPSM”.
18
mining, areas requiring strict ecological protection and zones
where biodiversity values necessitated conservation priority.
th
34. Vide the judgment and order dated 13 November
2025 in the present proceedings to which two of us (Gavai, CJI
and K. Vinod Chandran, J.) were a party, this Court has
directed the Wildlife Sanctuary to be established insofar as the
compartments which were identified as conservation areas/no
mining zones. However, this Court explicitly excluded the
compartments wherein the MPSM found that sustainable
mining could be permitted.
35. It is not in dispute that the Aravali Hills and Ranges
also exhibit similar ecological fragility, and it is also an area
comprising of significant biodiversity. Not only that it acts as
a green barrier thereby preventing desertification in the Indo-
Gangetic plains, Haryana and western Uttar Pradesh.
36. No doubt that as stated by the learned ASG, the
MoEF&CC had decided to develop a green corridor/green wall.
However, the note submitted by the learned ASG would itself
reveal that the Aravali mountain range faces “escalating
degradation pressures”. The note further states that
deforestation, unsustainable grazing, illegal and excessive
19
mining, and urban encroachment have contributed to
widespread ecosystem damage. It further states that forest
cover has declined significantly in the last two decades, desert
sands are moving eastwards, and aquifers have been depleted
or damaged by mining activities. It further states that these
cumulative impacts undermine not only biodiversity but also
water security and climate resilience. It has further been
stated that all these affect the livelihoods of communities
dependent on the landscape's resources.
37. Taking all these aspects into consideration, we are of
the considered view that while we propose to accept the report
of the Committee constituted by the MoEF&CC pursuant to
the orders passed by this Court, it would also be in the best
interest of the ecology and environment that a similar study
as was conducted for Saranda and Chaibasa, Singhbhum
District, Jharkhand by ICFRE is also conducted for Aravali
Hills and Ranges. No doubt that the Committee has taken care
by recommending prohibition of mining in core/inviolate areas
except in cases of critical, strategic and atomic minerals.
However, we find that it would be appropriate that such a
20
study be carried out taking into consideration the geological
importance of the Aravali mountain ranges.
38. It will be relevant to refer to paragraphs 7.3 and 7.4 of
the report of the Committee, which read thus:
“ 7.3 Regulation of Mining in Aravali Hills and
Ranges
7.3.1 The Committee recommends that to ensure
sustainable mining in the Aravalli Hills and ranges,
no new mining lease, except in case of critical,
strategic and atomic minerals (Atomic minerals
notified in part B and Critical and Strategic minerals
notified in Part D of the First Schedule of the MMDR
Act) and minerals listed in the Seventh Schedule of
the MMDR Act 1957 may be granted in Aravalli Hills
and Ranges as marked in the SOI Toposheets as per
the procedure described above
7.3.2 Regulation of operation of existing mines in
Aruvalli Hills and Ranges: The Committee
recommends that in case of ongoing mining leases
falling within in the area of Aravalli Hills and Ranges
as defined above, as well as for the renewal of such
mining leases, a team of experts comprising officers
of State Forest Department, Mining and Geology
Department, Local Administration and State
Pollution Control Board (SPCB) and such domain
experts as may be required, shall visit the concerned
mine to take stock of the compliance of EC/CTO
conditions and environmental safeguards followed by
the Mines for conservation of Aravalli Hills/Ranges
and prescribe necessary environmental safeguards
as deemed appropriate. The additional
environmental safeguard, as proposed by the
Committee, may be made a part of CTO conditions
and compliance thereof may be monitored by the
concerned SPCB.
21
7.4 Prohibition of Mining in Core/Inviolate Areas
7.4.1 Core/Inviolate areas may be designated in the
Aravalli Hills and Ranges for prohibiting mining in
them. For this purpose, following areas may be
designated as core/inviolate areas for the purpose of
mining:
i. Protected Areas, including tiger reserves
and all identified tiger corridors.
ii. Area covered under Draft or Final Eco
Sensitive Zone (ESZ)/Eco Sensitive Area
(ESA) notified under Section 3(2)(v) of the
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and
Section 5(1) of the Environment
(Protection) Rules, 1986
iii. For ESZs around Protected Areas, for
which proposals have been submitted by
the State Governments but are yet to be
notified as Draft/Final Notification by the
MoEFCC and for those, in which the
proposals are yet to be submitted by the
State Governments, the default ESZ shall
be regulated strictly as per the orders of
Hon'ble Supreme Court issued from time
to time in the matter of Writ Petition(s)
(Civil) No(s). 202/1995 Τ.Ν. Godavarman
Thirumulpad versus Union of India &
Ors.;
iv. No mining to be allowed within 1.0 km
of the boundary of Protected Area, even if
the boundary of ESZ is less than 1.0 km
from the boundary of the Protected Area.
v. Areas where plantations have been
raised with funds from CAMPA,
Government sources or under
international cooperation
vi. 500 m from the boundary of Ramsar
sites and Wetlands under Wetland
(Conservation & Management) Rules,
2017.”
22
39. We also appreciate the recommendations made by the
Committee for preventing illegal mining and permitting only
sustainable mining in the Aravali Hills and Ranges.
40.
However, taking all aspects of the matter into
consideration, especially the fact that the Aravali Hills and
Ranges harbour rich biodiversity, with twenty-two wildlife
sanctuaries, four tiger reserves, the Keoladeo National Park,
along with wetlands like Sultanpur, Sambhar, Siliserh, and
Asola Bhati, and aquifers that recharge river systems
including the ones at Chambal, Sabarmati, Luni, Mahi, and
Banas, it is more than appropriate that before permitting
further sustainable mining activities, the same are preceded
by preparation of an MPSM.
41. In this regard, Ms. Bhati, learned ASG, expressed an
apprehension that insofar as Saranda was concerned, it dealt
with a much smaller area. She further submitted that carrying
out an MPSM for such a huge area covered by the Aravali Hills
and Ranges, would take a much longer time and would be a
herculean task.
42. We are of the considered view that it may not be in the
interest of ecology and environment if further mining activities
23
are permitted to be carried out without a body of experts, such
as ICFRE, examining the issue of protection of the
conservation areas. The MPSM will provide adequate data on
the basis of geo-referenced ecological assessment and identify
the areas which have wildlife and other high eco-sensitive
areas, which are required to be conserved. The MPSM will also
provide data as to how sustainable mining is to be conducted.
43. The MPSM, for Saranda , had put up a specific question
as to whether diversion of one of the best natural virgin forest
areas in the country for a lease of 12 to 13 years for mining
activities, is really worthy and justified? It is not in dispute
that the Aravali Hills and Ranges are one of the oldest
geological features of planet Earth. The MPSM for Saranda has
emphasized the need for identification of critical wildlife
habitats, corridors linking critical wildlife habitats, rich forests
and such other important forest areas in Saranda Forest
which need to be protected and conserved for posterity and are
considered as ecologically important and may be considered
as inviolate for iron ore mining. Such areas have been notified
as Conservation Reserve/Corridors or Ecologically Sensitive
24
Areas in accordance with the provisions of the Wild Life
(Protection) Act, 1972 and the Environment (Protection) 1986 .
44. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that if such
an MPSM is carried out for the Aravali Hills and Ranges, it can
also identify the areas where sustainable mining activities
could be permitted.
45. We therefore find that it will be appropriate to prepare
a Management Plan, in the nature of MPSM for Sarandha, for
the Aravali Hills and Ranges.
46. The MoEF&CC, if necessary, can also consider
preparing MPSM for each of the districts in the Aravali Hills
and Ranges. However, while doing that, it should be ensured
that the continuity and integrity of the Aravali Hills and
Ranges is maintained.
47. Further, insofar as a ban on mining is concerned,
we do not propose to impose any such ban on the present legal
mining activities that are already being undertaken in the
Aravali Hills and Ranges.
48. This Court had on an earlier occasion noticed the ill
consequences of imposing a complete ban on mining activities
in the case of State of Bihar and Others v. Pawan Kumar
25
10
and Others , to which one of us (Gavai, J., as he then was)
was a party. A complete ban on mining could, as was seen in
the said case, lead to illegal mining activities being carried out,
creation of land/mining mafias and criminalisation.
49. We, however, clarify that mining activities already
being undertaken in the Aravali Hills and Ranges would be
carried out strictly in accordance with paragraph 8 of the
recommendations of the Committee’s Report.
50. In the result, we pass the following order:
(i) We accept the recommendations made by the Committee
with regard to the definition of Aravali Hills and Ranges
given by MoEF&CC;
(ii) We further accept the recommendations with regard to
the prohibition of mining in core/inviolate areas with
exception as carved out in paragraph 7.3.1 of the
Committee’s Report;
(iii) We also accept the recommendations for sustainable
mining in Aravali Hills and Ranges and the steps to be
taken for preventing illegal mining in Aravali Hills and
Ranges;
10
(2022) 2 SCC 348
26
(iv) We, however, direct the MoEF&CC to prepare a MPSM
through ICFRE for the entire Aravalis, i.e., understood as
the continuous geological ridge extending from Gujarat
to Delhi on the lines of the MPSM for Saranda and the
MPSM must:
a. Identify permissible areas for mining, ecologically
sensitive, conservation-critical and restoration-
priority areas within the Aravali landscape where
mining shall be strictly prohibited or permitted only
under exceptional and scientifically justified
circumstances;
b. Incorporate a thorough analysis of cumulative
environmental impacts and the ecological carrying
capacity of the region; and
c. Include detailed post-mining restoration and
rehabilitation measures.
(v) We further direct that till the MPSM is finalised by the
MoEF&CC through ICFRE, no new mining leases should
be granted;
(vi) We further direct that upon the MPSM being finalised by
MoEF&CC in consultation with the ICFRE, mining would
27
be permitted as per the MPSM only in those areas
wherein sustainable mining could be permitted; and
(vii) In the meantime, the mining activities in the mines which
are already in operation would be continued in strict
compliance with the recommendations made by the
Committee in paragraph 8 of its Report.
51. Since one of us (B.R. Gavai, CJI) is sitting in the
proceedings in W.P.(C) No.202/1995 for the last time, we feel
that it is our duty to place on record our deep appreciation for
Mr. K. Parameshwar, learned Amicus Curiae , who, for the last
three years has laboriously assisted this Court in passing
various judgments and orders for the protection and
conservation of environment, wildlife and ecology. We must
also place on record our deep appreciation for
Mr. M.V. Mukunda, Ms. Kanti, Ms. Raji Gururaj and
Mr. Shreenivas Patil, learned counsel, whose contribution in
assisting Mr. K. Parameshwar, learned Amicus Curiae is very
valuable. We must also place on record our appreciation for
Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Additional Solicitor General of
India, who has been representing the MoEF&CC in this matter
for a pro-active role and assisting this Court to find out the
28
solutions for protection and conservation of environment,
wildlife and ecology. We also place on record our appreciation
for Mr. Balbir Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
State of Haryana and Mr. K.M. Nataraj, learned Additional
Solicitor General of India appearing for the State of Rajasthan
in the present matter.
…………….................CJI
(B.R. GAVAI)
…................................J
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
…................................J
(N.V. ANJARIA)
NEW DELHI;
NOVEMBER 20, 2025.
29