The Supreme Court, while hearing the matter titled In Re: Definition of Aravalli Hills and Ranges and Ancillary Issues, issued notice to the parties and directed that its earlier interim directions shall continue to operate.

The Supreme Court sought suggestions from Amicus Curiae and other lawyers on the names of persons to be included in an expert committee proposed to be constituted to examine the issues surrounding the definition of the Aravalli hills and environmental concerns arising from mining in the hills. Submissions were made that certain forest lands degraded due to prolonged illegal mining are now sought to be repurposed for projects such as a zoo safari and eco-tourism facilities. It was argued that degradation caused by unlawful activity cannot be used as a justification for commercial exploitation of forest land.

Senior Adv Kapil Sibal appearing in the matter urged the Court to first conduct a preliminary hearing, cautioning that mountain systems like the Aravallis, much like the Himalayas, cannot be rigidly defined due to their tectonic and geological continuity across states.

Counsel representing former forest officers, including officers from the Haryana cadre, submitted that the land in question is prime forest land under the control of the Forest Department. It was also placed on record that the project is still at a preliminary stage, with only a Detailed Project Report (DPR) having been submitted to the Central Zoo Authority, and that no approval has been granted so far.

Serious ecological concerns were flagged before the Bench, including the potential impact on the water table, the introduction of alien species, and the source and welfare of animals. The Court was told that these issues require scientific scrutiny by domain experts.

The Bench reiterated its intent to adopt a holistic and expert-driven approach to the protection of the Aravalli ecosystem and observed that no activity should proceed that may irreversibly damage the fragile ecology of the region. It was also noted that a contempt petition is pending in relation to alleged violations of past orders.