The Supreme Court of India on Thursday moved another step closer to constituting an expert committee to define the Aravalli Hills, observing that even legally sanctioned mining operations in the region will have to wait for the panel’s opinion.
A bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, and comprising justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi, acknowledged the urgency of the matter, noting that a blanket halt on mining could affect the availability of construction material. At the same time, it made clear that status quo would continue for now. The court granted two weeks to the Centre and other stakeholders to propose names of domain experts who could assist in comprehensively defining the Aravalli hills and ranges, taking into account ecology, forest cover, gradients, hillocks and existing urban settlements.
“We are conscious of the fact that all activities, especially mining activities, for which lease has been granted along with all permission, have come to a halt. However, such a status quo will have to be maintained for the time being till some of the preliminary issues are answered in a phased manner after constituting the expert committee,” the bench said, posting the matter to the second week of March.
The court is hearing a suo motu petition concerning the definition of the Aravalli hills. In earlier proceedings, it had directed maintenance of status quo on mining and kept in abeyance its own November 20, 2025, judgment that accepted a definition proposed by a committee headed by the secretary of the Union ministry of environment, forest and climate change (MoEFCC). That panel had suggested that hills rising 100 metres above local relief be classified as “Aravalli hills”.
On Thursday, a mining company and moved an application that sought permission to resume operations, claiming it held a valid lease and all necessary approvals. Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the firm, argued that the court’s earlier order had stalled even lawful mining.
Responding, the bench observed, “We realise we cannot stall everything as construction material is needed. But let the entire exercise be complete. Let the experts tell us if mining is permissible and if so, under what conditions.” The court directed additional solicitor general Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for MoEFCC, to suggest by March 10 a panel of experts along with their credentials: “We do not propose to extend time beyond that as it will unnecessarily delay proceedings.”
Directing that the matter be listed that same week, the bench said, “The opinion of MoEFCC shall be of eminent assistance for the purpose of defining the expression Aravalli, the total area, gradients and hillocks, forest cover, and that part of Aravalli where already the cities, towns and villages have developed over centuries.”
It also asked senior advocate K Parmeshwar, domain expert Jay Cheema, and counsel representing states such as Haryana and Rajasthan to recommend suitable names.
The bench indicated that it would formally constitute the committee at the next hearing. In its December 29, 2025 order, the court had outlined the panel’s mandate, which includes providing a definitive enumeration of regions falling within the Aravalli definition and identifying territories to be excluded from protection under the proposed criteria.
The committee had also been tasked with examining whether “sustainable” or “regulated” mining within newly demarcated Aravalli areas would cause any adverse ecological consequences affecting the overall integrity of the range. Additionally, it must assess both short-term and long-term environmental impacts of implementing the revised definition and related directions.
On Thursday, the amicus curiae submitted a note urging the court to direct the expert panel to commission a comprehensive survey of the entire Aravalli region. The survey, he suggested, should map key ecological corridors, aquifers within the Aravalli ecosystem and existing mining plans, alongside defining the hills and ranges.
In 2002, the Supreme Court imposed a ban on mining across the Aravalli region. However, a 2018 report by the Forest Survey of India (FSI) pointed to extensive illegal mining, noting the disappearance of 31 hillocks across more than 3,000 sites in Rajasthan and Haryana. While the states denied large-scale illegality, the amicus had argued that the absence of a uniform definition of the Aravalli hills created regulatory ambiguity.
However, this order was kept in abeyance by the bench presided by CJI Kant in December when it said, “There has been a significant outcry among environmentalists, who have expressed profound concern about the potential for misinterpretation and improper implementation of the newly adopted definition and this court’s directions. This public dissent and criticism appear to stem from the perceived ambiguity and lack of clarity in certain terms and directives issued by this court.”