The Supreme Court on Monday discussed recommendations for constituting an expert committee that will examine the definition of the Aravalli Hills and Ranges and determine the scope of permissible and prohibited activities in the ecologically sensitive region.

During the hearing, the Bench indicated that the committee should remain compact while drawing expertise from multiple disciplines. The Court orally observed:

“we cannot have a composition of 30 people for each, it will become unimaginable. So committee can be ideally of 5 or maximum 7, but they must associate other domain experts. There are people like, somebody may be in forestry experts, somebody is in… he is only to give respect to the geographical condition. So his role will be to that extent that their limited expertise role should be utilized.”

Counsel argued that earlier exercises concerning the Aravallis lacked adequate public consultation and urged the Court to direct the committee to evolve a mechanism for inviting suggestions from all stakeholders. The Court also emphasised the importance of stakeholder consultation during the committee’s exercise. The Bench orally observed:

“Sometimes very good suggestions come from the common man or the person can give very good suggestions. Those also be respected, considered.”

Counsel appearing in the matter submitted that several names proposed by the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) and the Amicus Curiae overlapped, with four names being common across both recommendations.

Suggestions were also made by ASG Aishwarya Bhati for involving institutional bodies such as the Forest Survey of India, Indian Bureau of Mines, CSIR laboratories, and IIT experts to provide scientific and technical inputs to the panel.

The Court directed that all suggested names be consolidated before being placed for consideration.

_______________________________

Another Counsel appearing in the matter submitted that the court earlier directed that the ongoing mining operations will not be halted. Responding to the submission, the Chief Justice observed:

“We are dicey about that. Right now, you need to have some patience, that’s all. Because by the time, let the experts examine it. We are not against anyone else…We don’t want to prejudge this.”