The Aravalli Hills row has intensified after the Supreme Court backed a 100‑metre rule defining what counts as part of the ancient range. Critics warn it could leave vital ecosystems unprotected, while protests mount. The court has now stayed its earlier order and formed an expert panel to review it
India is witnessing a heated debate over a new definition of the Aravalli Hills, one of the world’s oldest mountain ranges stretching from Delhi through Haryana, Rajasthan, and into Gujarat.
At the heart of the controversy is a Supreme Court‑backed definition that would classify only certain landforms as part of the Aravalli range. Critics argue that this could weaken protections and leave the ecosystem vulnerable to environmental damage.
The court had accepted recommendations from a panel set up by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, which stipulated that a landform must rise at least 100 metres above the surrounding terrain to be officially considered an Aravalli hill. Furthermore, two or more such hills within 500 metres of each other, along with their slopes and surrounding land, would constitute an “Aravalli Range.”
Why the definition matters and the latest verdict
In practical terms, this new rule has raised concerns because many parts of the Aravalli landscape are lower than 100 metres yet remain ecologically crucial.
Activists, scientists, and opposition leaders argue that the change could leave vast stretches of fragile ecosystem unprotected, opening them up to mining, construction, and other commercial activities that were previously restricted.
Opponents say that the Aravallis are more than just high hills.
They serve as a natural barrier against desertification, help recharge groundwater, support diverse flora and fauna, and buffer pollution, particularly around the Delhi‑NCR region. Critics warn that excluding lower ridges and rocky outcrops could compromise these environmental functions, worsening issues like dust storms and water scarcity.
The response has been swift. Mass protests have erupted in Rajasthan and other states, with thousands marching to demand stronger safeguards and oppose the new definition. Political parties such as the Congress have criticised the move, even calling for resignations, calling the original ruling a threat to ecological stability.
Environmentalists and petitioners have taken the matter back to the Supreme Court, which on Monday
stayed its own earlier order, temporarily halting the implementation of the 100‑metre rule while the debate continues. In response, the court has also formed an expert panel to review the matter before taking any further decision.
Meanwhile, the Centre and some officials maintain that the definition was meant to bring clarity and uniformity across states, adding that legal protections and mining bans remain in place in designated protected areas.
End of Article
