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.
Fresh case registered against activist Snehamayi Krishna
Bengaluru PTI): A fresh FIR has been registered against social activist Snehamayi Krishna for making defamatory statements against a woman.
Basaveshwara Nagar Police Station registered a First Information Report against Krishna on Saturday.
According to the FIR, complainant Pavithra B N (37) alleged that a letter dated December 5 was delivered to her residence, in which Snehamayi Krishna made defamatory allegations regarding the death of her husband and against her advocate, Raghu.
The letter also indicated that a complaint had been submitted to the Mahalakshmipuram Police Station seeking reinvestigation into her husband’s death.
The complainant further alleged that a threatening note was enclosed with the letter, pressuring her to withdraw cases filed against a man named Mylaraappa.
She stated that the mobile number of the person exerting pressure was mentioned in the letter.
Pavithra claimed that the alleged actions had caused severe distress to her family, disrupted her children’s education, created unrest at home and deprived them of peace.
She also accused the persons named in the complaint of using abusive language and issuing life threats.
Police initially registered a non-cognisable report.
After Pavithra obtained permission from the 24th ACMM Court to initiate criminal proceedings, an FIR was formally registered against Snehamayi Krishna and Mylaraappa as per the court’s direction.
Krishna has previously been in the news for lodging complaints and making allegations against Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, his wife Parvathi B M, and others for obtaining Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) alternative sites (plots) against the rules.
The Lokayukta police which investigated the matter filed a closure report, which the special court of public representatives admitted.
On Thursday, he also levelled accusations against Karnataka Chief Secretary Shalini Rajneesh along with a Karnataka Administrative Services (KAS) officer D B Natesh, the former MUDA Commissioner.
Shalini Rajneesh's office rejected the charges categorically and termed his accusations "defamatory".
On Saturday he apologised for making allegations against the Chief Secretary.
