Introduction
The Aravalli mountain range, India’s ancient ecological backbone, faces severe degradation from four decades of excessive and often illicit quarrying, impacting air quality and groundwater recharge despite its vital role in preventing desertification and supporting biodiversity. While the Environment Ministry’s early 1990s mining restrictions were widely flouted, the Supreme Court has progressively intervened, imposing a blanket ban in specific Haryana districts in 2009, and in May 2024, prohibiting new mining leases and renewals across the range. This led to the Central Empowered Committee’s comprehensive recommendations in March 2024, adopted by the Court in November 2025, advocating for scientific mapping, environmental impact assessments, strict prohibitions in sensitive areas, and a moratorium on new leases until these measures are complete. Concurrently, the Centre launched the Aravalli ‘Green Wall’ project in June 2025, aiming to restore degraded land through expanded green cover, underscoring a multi-faceted approach to conservation[1].
Intervention by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court’s recent endorsement of a uniform, elevation-based definition for the Aravalli hills, requiring a minimum relative relief of 100 meters, marks a pivotal shift in the legal and regulatory landscape governing one of India’s most ecologically significant mountain systems. While the move aims to bring clarity and uniformity, it raises critical questions about the adequacy of current environmental safeguards, the constitutional mandate for ecological protection, and the potential risks of narrowing the scope of protected areas. The Apex Court, however, in, In Re: Definition of Aravalli Hills and Ranges, Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil), on December 29, 2025, kept in abeyance its November 20, 2025, judgment upholding a government expert panel definition restricting the world’s oldest surviving mountain systems, the Aravalli, to hills sporting an elevation of 100 metres or above, and hill clusters, slopes and hillocks located within 500 metres of each other. Essentially, the stay shall remain in effect until the present proceedings reach a state of logical finality, ensuring that no irreversible administrative or ecological actions are taken based on the current framework. Additionally, the Apex Court had directed that no fresh or renewed mining leases should be given without its prior permission.
The Apex Court has proposed the constitution of a high-powered expert committee comprising domain specialists to comprehensively re-examine questions relating to the height, extent, and ecological significance of the Aravallis, as well as the permissibility of mining activities in the region. The Supreme Court directed that the report to be submitted by the Expert Committee must undertake an exhaustive and holistic examination of the issues formulated by the Court on the following parameters[2]:
i. Clear enumeration of the specific regions that would fall within the scope of the recommended definition of the Aravalli Hills and Ranges.
ii. Detailed identification of territories that would be excluded from environmental protection under the proposed criteria.
iii. Analysis of whether permitting “sustainable” or “regulated” mining within the newly demarcated Aravalli areas, despite regulatory oversight, would result in adverse ecological consequences.
iv. Evaluation of areas no longer covered by the definition, particularly whether such exclusion poses a risk of their eventual erasure or degradation, thereby compromising the overall ecological integrity of the Aravalli range.
v. multi-temporal assessment of both short-term and long-term environmental impacts arising from the implementation of the proposed definition.
The Precautionary Principle & Key Aspects in India
The Precautionary Principle essentially states that where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage to the environment, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation. In simpler terms, if an activity poses a potential threat to the environment or human health, even if there isn’t conclusive scientific proof of harm, action should be taken to prevent that harm. Traditionally, the burden of proof lies with the party alleging harm. However, under the Precautionary Principle, if an activity is environmentally hazardous or has the potential to be so, the burden shifts to the proponent of the activity (e.g., a developer, an industry) to prove that their action is not environmentally harmful. It mandates anticipatory action to prevent environmental harm. Instead of waiting for scientific certainty of damage, measures should be taken to prevent it. While advocating for preventive measures, it also emphasises that these measures should be cost-effective, balancing environmental protection with economic considerations where appropriate, but never compromising on the core objective of preventing irreversible damage[3].
As far as the landmark cases are concerned, in the case of Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India[4], the Supreme Court explicitly adopted the Precautionary Principle as part of the environmental law of the country and held that the absence of a full scientific consensus should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation. Further, in the case of A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu[5], the Court elaborated on the principle, emphasising the need for environmental impact assessments and the shifting of the burden of proof. It is frequently applied in cases involving industrial pollution, siting of hazardous industries, approval of projects with potential ecological impact, and regulation of activities in ecologically sensitive areas.
The Polluter Pays Principle & Key Aspects in India
The Polluter Pays Principle dictates that the costs of preventing and controlling pollution, and the costs of environmental damage, should be borne by those who cause the pollution. It is a principle of environmental liability that aims to internalise the environmental costs of economic activities. The principle ensures that the polluter, rather than the general public or the government, bears the financial responsibility for the environmental damage they cause and the measures required to prevent or mitigate such damage. This includes the costs of remediation, restoration, and compensation. In India, this principle is often applied in conjunction with the concept of ‘strict liability’ or ‘absolute liability’ for hazardous activities, as established in cases like M.C. Mehta v. Union of India[6]. This means that even if the polluter took all reasonable precautions, they are still liable for the harm caused by a hazardous activity. The principle not only covers the costs of preventing future pollution but also the costs of restoring the environment to its original state (or as close as possible) and compensating victims for any harm suffered.
As far as landmark cases are concerned, in the case of Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India, alongside the Precautionary Principle, the Supreme Court also adopted the Polluter Pays Principle, stating that it is a sound principle for environmental protection and that the polluter is liable to pay the cost to the victims of pollution as well as the cost of restoring the degraded environment. Further, in the case of the Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India[7], the Apex Court directed the polluters to pay for the remediation of the contaminated areas. It is widely applied in cases of industrial pollution (air, water, soil), hazardous waste management, oil spills, and other activities that cause environmental degradation, ensuring accountability and financial responsibility. Both principles are crucial for promoting environmental sustainability and accountability in India, guiding judicial decisions and regulatory frameworks to protect the nation’s natural heritage.
Public Trust Doctrine
The Public Trust Doctrine in Indian environmental law essentially holds that certain natural resources, like air, water, forests, and ecologically fragile lands (such as the Aravali Hills), are held by the State as a trustee for the benefit of the general public and future generations. This doctrine imposes a legal obligation on the State to protect these resources from private encroachment and to ensure their sustainable use. The doctrine was adopted into Indian jurisprudence by the Supreme Court in the landmark case of M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath[8]. The Court explicitly stated that the State is the trustee of all natural resources which are by nature meant for public use and enjoyment.
The State, including its various instrumentalities (government departments, local authorities), is not the owner of these resources but merely a custodian. It has a fiduciary duty to protect and preserve them. The beneficiaries of this trust are the general public, both present and future generations. This means the State cannot alienate these resources for private gain if it harms the public interest or the environment. The doctrine restricts the State’s power to transfer or convert public trust properties for private use, especially if such actions would lead to environmental degradation or deprive the public of their right to these resources.
The Courts can intervene to ensure that the State fulfils its trustee obligations. If the State acts contrary to the public trust, its actions can be challenged and struck down by the judiciary. The doctrine serves as a powerful tool for environmental protection, compelling the State to take proactive measures to conserve natural resources and prevent pollution. It reinforces the idea that environmental protection is a fundamental duty of the State. It has been applied to various resources, including rivers, lakes, forests, coastal areas, and ecologically sensitive zones like the Aravali Hills, to prevent their degradation or exploitation for private commercial interests. In essence, the Public Trust Doctrine ensures that the State acts as a responsible steward of vital natural resources, safeguarding them for the collective well-being rather than allowing their exploitation for narrow private interests.
Ecological Complexity vs. Administrative Simplicity
The Aravalli range, especially in its northern and eastern stretches, is characterised by a mosaic of low-relief landforms, ridges, shallow hillocks, and pediments that, despite falling below the 100-meter threshold, play a vital role in sustaining groundwater levels, preventing soil erosion, and supporting biodiversity. The Forest Survey of India’s data indicates that under the new definition, only about 8.7% of the previously mapped Aravalli landforms will remain protected, leaving the majority exposed to potential exploitation.
Constitutional and Legal Mandates
Environmental protection is not a matter of policy discretion but a constitutional obligation. Article 48A directs the State to safeguard the environment, while Article 51A(g) entrusts citizens with a similar duty. The Supreme Court, through its interpretation of Article 21, has recognised the right to a healthy environment as intrinsic to the right to life, as enshrined in the case of Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar[9]. Any regulatory redefinition that diminishes protection for ecologically sensitive areas must be scrutinised for its substantive impact on these constitutional guarantees.
Judicial Approach: Function Over Form
Indian courts have consistently prioritised ecological function over rigid parameters. The Aravalli system’s value lies in its environmental services, groundwater recharge, climate moderation, and desertification prevention, rather than mere elevation. The Supreme Court’s interventions in cases like M.C. Mehta v. Union of India[10] (Aravalli mining matters) have underscored the need for robust protection of fragile ecosystems, even at the expense of economic interests.
Statutory and Federal Considerations
Environmental statutes such as the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, are conservation-centric and require that classifications be informed by scientific and ecological expertise, as in A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu[11]. Furthermore, the principle of cooperative federalism allows States to impose stricter environmental standards based on local needs, and uniform definitions should not undermine this flexibility.
Policy Recommendations
To re-examine the definition of the Aravali Range, a more nuanced approach shall be considered that incorporates ecological function and landscape connectivity, rather than relying solely on elevation. It also needs to be ensured that any reclassification does not result in the rollback of protections for ecologically sensitive areas. Promoting scientific assessment and comprehensive ecological studies must be incorporated before implementing definitional changes. Further, to uphold the constitutional values, all regulatory actions must be aligned with the constitutional mandate for environmental protection and the precautionary principle. Additionally, to facilitate State autonomy, the States shall be allowed the flexibility to adopt stricter safeguards where regional ecological imperatives demand[12].
Conclusion
The current debate over the Aravalli hills’ definition is emblematic of the broader challenge of balancing administrative clarity with ecological integrity. As India faces mounting environmental pressures, policy decisions must be guided by constitutional principles, scientific evidence, and a commitment to intergenerational equity[13]. The preservation of the Aravalli system is not merely a technical or administrative issue; it is a constitutional imperative and a test of our collective stewardship of natural resources.
Author Details:
*Pankaj Bajpai, a dedicated writer/editor having experience in legal journalism, has contributed articles for international journals, including IBFD, the Netherlands, and also covered press stories for the National Taxation Awards in Parliamentarian Magazine published by Niti Media Cell
**Kunal Sharma, a fresh law graduate, is a freelance legal copy editor for Latestlaws.com and Juristway Publishers
[1] How is the Aravalli range to be protected? | Explained HERE
[2] Supreme Court Stays Nov 20 Verdict on Aravalli Definition, Proposes Fresh Expert Panel to Revisit Issue, accessible HERE
[3] Aravalli Hills: Protecting Ecology and Ensuring Sustainable Development, accessible HERE
[4] (1996) 5 SCC 647
[5] (1999) 2 SCC 718
[6] (1987) 1 SCC 395
[7] (1996) 3 SCC 212
[8] (1997) 1 SCC 388
[9] (1991) 1 SCC 598
[10] Supra Note. 6
[11] (1999) 2 SCC 718
[12] Why India’s Aravalli hills are at the centre of growing protests, accessible HERE
[13] Uniform definition of Aravallis accepted by Supreme Court will be catastrophic for India’s oldest mountain range, accessible HERE