A three-judge Special Vacation Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant – which on Monday ordered to keep in abeyance its November 20 order that was based on a previous committee’s recommendations — also set out parameters for the new panel to approach these issues.
It said that prior to the implementation of the committee’s report or the execution of the directions contained in its November 20, 2025, judgment, “a fair, impartial and independent expert opinion must be obtained and considered, after associating all requisite stakeholders.”
It asked the panel to examine if the definition of the ‘Aravalli Hills and Ranges’, restricted exclusively to the 500-meter area between two or more Aravalli Hills, creates a structural paradox wherein the geographical scope of protected territory is significantly narrowed.
Consequently, it should be determined if this restrictive demarcation has inversely broadened the scope of ‘non-Aravalli’ areas, thereby facilitating the continuation of unregulated mining and other disruptive activities in terrains ecologically contiguous but technically excluded by this definition, it said.
The top court also asked the committee to examine if the Aravalli hills, characterised by an elevation of 100 meters and above, constitute a contiguous ecological formation even when the intervening distance exceeds the stipulated 500-meter threshold.
Furthermore, in such instances, it must be clarified whether regulated mining would be permissible in these gaps. If so, what precise spatial parameters or lateral width would be utilised to define the extent of the ‘Aravalli Range’ to ensure that ecological continuity is not compromised, it asked
It also wanted the committee to look into if the widely publicised criticism asserting that only 1,048 hills out of 12,081 in Rajasthan meet the 100-meter elevation threshold, thereby stripping the remaining lower ranges of environmental protection, was factually and scientifically accurate.
In the event this assessment correctly identifies a significant regulatory lacuna, it must be determined whether an exhaustive scientific and geological investigation is necessitated.
“Such an inquiry would involve the precise measurement of all hill and hillock elevations to facilitate a more nuanced and ‘measured’ assessment of the criteria required to maintain the structural and ecological integrity of the entire range,” the Bench said.
The top court further asked the panel to examine whether there exist any supplementary issues or systemic vulnerabilities that may emerge during the course of these proceedings that necessitate this court’s intervention.
The Bench – which also included Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice AG Masih – referred five crucial issues to the new panel for “an exhaustive and holistic examination” of the questions formulated and referred to it.
Setting out parameters for the new expert panel to approach the issues referred to, the Bench asked it to conduct a definitive enumeration of the specific regions that fall within the scope of the recommended definition as also a detailed identification of the territories that would be excluded from protection under the proposed criteria.
It also asked the panel to analyse if ‘sustainable mining’ or ‘regulated mining’ within the newly demarcated Aravalli areas, notwithstanding regulatory oversight, would result in any adverse ecological consequences and conduct an assessment of the areas no longer covered by the definition, specifically whether such exclusion risks their eventual erasure or degradation, thereby compromising the overall ecological integrity of the Aravalli range.
The top court asked the committee to conduct a “multi-temporal evaluation of the short-term and long-term environmental impacts resulting from the implementation of the recommended definition and its associated directions.”