SC accepts Centre's definition of Aravali Hills, bans grant of fresh mining leases
New Delhi (PTI): In a verdict aimed at safeguarding the world's oldest mountain systems, the Supreme Court has accepted a uniform definition of the Aravali Hills and Ranges and banned grant of fresh mining leases inside its areas spanning Delhi, Haryana, Rajasthan and Gujarat until experts' reports are out.
In its last judgement, Chief Justice B R Gavai on Thursday accepted the recommendations of a committee of MoEF&CC (Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change) on the definition of Aravali Hills and Ranges to protect the Aravali Hills and Ranges.
"Aravali Hill" will be defined as any landform in designated Aravali districts with an elevation of 100 metres or more above its local relief and an "Aravali Range" will be a collection of two or more such hills within 500 metres of each other.
The committee, while defining Aravali Hills, said, "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... 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."
The panel also defined Aravali Range and said, "Two or more Aravali Hills ..., located within the proximity of 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 ... 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."
The bench, also comprising justices K Vinod Chandran and N V Anjaria, delivered a 29-page judgement in the suo motu matter arising out of the long-running environmental litigation in TN Godavarman Thirumulpad case.
"We further accept the recommendations with regard to the prohibition of mining in core/inviolate areas with exception as carved out of the ... committee's report," CJI Gavai, who authored the judgement, said.
The bench also accepted the recommendations for sustainable mining and the steps to be taken for preventing illegal mining in Aravali Hills and Ranges.
It also directed the authorities to identify permissible areas for "mining and 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".
"We further direct that till the MPSM (Management Plan for Sustainable Mining) is finalised by the MoEF&CC through ICFRE (Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education), no new mining leases should be granted," it said.
The bench further directed that mining can be permitted if sustainable mining is allowed as per the MPSM which will be finalised by MoEF&CC in consultation with the ICFRE.
"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," it said.
Calling the Aravalis a "green barrier" that prevents the eastward spread of the Thar desert and supports rich biodiversity, the court held that a clear, scientific definition was essential for ensuring environmental conservation, regulating land use, and determining permissible mining activities.
The top court, on November 12, reserved its verdict on the issue of defining the Aravali Hills and Ranges.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Nicobar Tribal Council Alleges FRA Violations in Great Nicobar Wildlife Sanctuaries
Sri Vijaypuram (Port Blair): The Tribal Council of Little and Great Nicobar has alleged fresh violations of the Forest Rights Act in the notification of three wildlife sanctuaries linked to the Centre’s ₹92,000-crore Great Nicobar Island project, even as the Calcutta High Court is set to hear petitions challenging the mega project over similar concerns next month.
The Union government had, in October 2022, notified three wildlife sanctuaries in parts of Little Nicobar Island, Menchal Island and Meroe Island for the conservation of leatherback turtles, megapodes and coral ecosystems. The move came after the government acknowledged that the proposed infrastructure project on Great Nicobar Island would affect coral colonies and nesting habitats of endangered species.
However, the tribal council has maintained that the sanctuaries were declared without consultation with the Nicobarese communities who traditionally inhabit and manage these islands.
In a letter dated April 23 addressed to the Assistant Conservator of Forests of the Nicobar Forest Division, the council reiterated its opposition to the sanctuaries and objected to the formation of a committee to determine eco-sensitive zones around the protected areas.
The council said its chairman had not been consulted before being included in the committee and was informed of his membership only a month after the committee was constituted.
The three notified sanctuaries include the Leatherback Turtle Sanctuary in parts of Little Nicobar Island, the Megapode Sanctuary covering the entire Menchal Island and the Coral Sanctuary spanning the whole of Meroe Island.
According to the council, Menchal and Meroe islands hold deep cultural and spiritual significance for the Nicobarese community, which believes the islands are inhabited by the spirits of their ancestors.
The council demanded that the sanctuary notifications be revoked and the eco-sensitive zone committee dissolved, alleging that both decisions were taken against the wishes of the indigenous community.
Meanwhile, Jairam Ramesh has written to Tribal Affairs Minister Jual Oram alleging violations of the Forest Rights Act in the process of obtaining consent for diversion of forest land for the Great Nicobar project.
Ramesh argued that consent should have been obtained through the Tribal Council representing the Nicobarese communities instead of through Gram Sabhas representing settler families. He also questioned how the government-controlled Andaman Adim Janjati Vikas Samiti could provide consent on behalf of the Shompen community, classified as a Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Group.
He urged the Tribal Affairs Ministry to intervene and seek withdrawal of clearances granted for the project under the Forest Rights Act.
Earlier, Ramesh had also written to Union Environment Minister Bhupender Yadav alleging that environmental impact studies for the project were conducted in haste and without the detailed seasonal assessments mandated under environmental laws.
The dispute dates back to 2022 when the Andaman and Nicobar administration initiated the process for notifying the three sanctuaries before holding Special Gram Sabhas for diversion of forest land linked to the Great Nicobar project.
In May that year, the administration invited objections and claims regarding the proposed sanctuaries. Subsequently, on July 19, the Nicobar Deputy Commissioner certified that no objections or claims had been received.
The tribal council later wrote to the district administration stating that the notification process was carried out without ensuring that residents of Little Nicobar Island were informed as required by law. It alleged that no public announcements seeking objections were made in villages such as Bahua, Muhincoihn and Kiyang, whose residents traditionally use and manage parts of the notified areas.
The council said the Nicobarese community had protected the islands and wildlife for generations through customary practices and traditional belief systems.
It further argued that the sanctuaries would interfere with long-standing rights over forests and coastal areas. They noted that these areas are used for rituals, plantations, collection of forest produce, construction of huts and canoes, harvesting medicinal plants and worship.
In November 2024, the council objected to draft Island Coastal Regulation Zone plans, demanding basic infrastructure, instead of proposed eco-tourism activities in the sanctuaries. The council demanded better public restrooms, jetties, water facilities, pathways, and mobile connectivity.
The Nicobar administration issued a clarification in May 2025, stating that the sanctuaries would not affect hunting rights available to Scheduled Tribes in the Nicobar Islands. The council, however, rejected the clarification, stating that their dependence on forests and coasts extended far beyond hunting activities.
Earlier this month, a Bench led by the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court dismissed preliminary objections raised by the Union government against petitions challenging the diversion of forest land for the Great Nicobar project. The matter has now been listed for final hearing in June.
