Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | W.P.(C) No.-000202-000202 – 1995 |
| Diary Number | 2997/1995 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE |
| Bench | HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH |
| Type of Law | Environmental and Mineral Regulation |
| Questions of Law | Whether a uniform operational definition of “Aravali Hills and Ranges” is necessary for consistent regulation of mining, and whether the MoEF&CC can be directed to prepare a geo-referenced MPSM before granting new leases. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that consistent state definitions and scientific mapping are essential to preserve the Aravali ecosystem under the UNCCD and precautionary principle. It accepted the multi-stakeholder Committee’s operational definition, carving out core/inviolate zones, and mandated preparation of an ICFRE-driven MPSM to identify permissible mining areas, cumulative impacts, and post-mining restoration measures. No new mining leases may be granted until the MPSM is finalized, while existing lawful operations must comply with the Committee’s environmental safeguards. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Reliance on UNCCD Articles 4, 5, 10 to enforce integrated desertification measures; precautionary principle; CEC and FSI technical reports; ICFRE’s model for geo-referenced ecological assessment; prior Supreme Court orders on mining regulation and sustainable use. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The Aravali Range spans Delhi, Haryana, Rajasthan and Gujarat and acts as a green barrier against desertification. Disparate state definitions led to unregulated mining. The Supreme Court directed the CEC and a multi-stakeholder Committee to frame a uniform definition, mapping protocol, and environmental safeguards. The Committee reported in October 2025, proposing an operational definition, core/inviolate zones, and mapping and EIA studies. The Court has now finalized those recommendations and mandated an ICFRE-led MPSM before any new leases. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change; Governments of NCT Delhi, Haryana, Rajasthan, Gujarat |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- A Supreme Court-mandated “operational definition” of Aravali Hills (≥ 100 m elevation from local relief plus buffer) and Ranges (hills within 500 m proximity) replaces inconsistent state definitions.
- Core/inviolate zones—including Protected Areas, ESZs, tiger corridors, Ramsar sites, plantations, and critical aquifers—are now off-limits to mining, with narrow exceptions for strategic/atomic minerals.
- No new mining leases in the Aravali are permitted until an ICFRE-driven Management Plan for Sustainable Mining (MPSM) is finalized under MoEF&CC direction.
- The MPSM must geo-reference ecological sensitivity, cumulative impact, carrying capacity and prescribe post-mining restoration measures—mirroring the Saranda model.
- Ongoing lawful mining may continue only under the Committee’s enhanced environmental safeguards and SPCB monitoring.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- International Obligations
Articles 4, 5 and 10 of the UNCCD bind India to prevent desertification, conserve ecosystems and frame national action plans. - Disparate State Definitions & Illegal Mining
CEC’s report documented conflicting definitions of “Aravali Hills/Ranges” across States and rampant illegal mining. - Committee’s Operational Definition
A multi-stakeholder Committee (MoEF&CC, state Secretaries, FSI, GSI, CEC rep.) proposed a geo-referenced elevation-and-proximity definition to ensure continuity of the range. - Core/Inviolate Zones & Sustainable Mining
The Committee identified Protected Areas, ESZs, tiger corridors, Ramsar wetlands, CAMPA plantations and critical aquifer zones as inviolate; allowed sustainable mining elsewhere under strict safeguards. - Mandate for MPSM by ICFRE
Drawing on the Saranda precedent, the Court required MoEF&CC to commission an ICFRE-led MPSM to map sensitive areas, assess cumulative impacts, and guide restoration. - Interim & Final Directives
- Existing lawful mines continue under Committee safeguards.
- No new leases until MPSM finalization.
- Post-MPSM, mining only in approved zones as per the plan.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner / Amicus Curiae
- The Committee’s 100 m elevation threshold excludes lower hills, fracturing ecological continuity.
- FSI’s expert definition (slope > 3°, foothill buffer, valley width, encircled area) should have been adopted.
- The substituted definition risks opening environmentally sensitive areas to mining.
Respondent / MoEF&CC
- The Committee’s definition is broader than FSI’s and better serves sustainable mining and conservation goals.
- Core/inviolate zones and EIA-based safeguards provide a balanced framework.
- An MPSM is essential before granting new leases.
States of Rajasthan & Haryana
- Opposed blanket suspension of leases due to livelihoods of mining-dependent workers.
- Advocate for processing applications with statutory clearances under the Committee’s framework.
Factual Background
In Writ Petition (C) No. 202/1995, environmental issues regarding mining in the ecologically vital Aravali Range across Delhi, Haryana, Gujarat and Rajasthan remained unresolved. In January 2024, the Supreme Court directed the CEC to examine inconsistent state definitions of “Aravali Hills and Ranges” and mining impacts. A May 2024 order constituted a multi-stakeholder Committee to frame a uniform, geo-referenced definition and safeguards. After the Committee’s October 2025 report recommending elevation-based mapping, core/inviolate zones, EIA studies and an online lease system, the Court held final hearings and issued these binding directives.
Statutory Analysis
- UNCCD (1996): Articles 4–10 impose integrated measures against desertification and mandate national action programmes.
- Environment (Protection) Act, 1986: Section 3(2)(v) and Rule 5(1) authorize notification of Eco Sensitive Zones (ESZs).
- Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972: Defines Protected Areas, tiger reserves, and corridors, requiring inviolate status.
- MMDR Act, 1957: Schedules B and D list atomic, critical and strategic minerals; Seventh Schedule governs mineral leases.
- Wetlands (Conservation & Management) Rules, 2017: Regulate Ramsar sites and notified wetlands within 500 m buffers.
- National Action Plan to Combat Desertification, 2023: Directs synergistic eco-restoration initiatives.
Procedural Innovations
- Supreme Court-mandated constitution of a multi-stakeholder Committee (MoEF&CC, FSI, GSI, state Secretaries, CEC rep.) for a uniform operational definition.
- Direction to geo-tag mapped Aravali areas and conduct macro-level EIA by ICFRE.
- First-of-its-kind requirement for an ICFRE-led, geo-referenced Management Plan for Sustainable Mining (MPSM) before any new leases.
- Carving out of core/inviolate zones with judicially sanctioned exceptions for strategic and atomic minerals.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
None; the judgment was unanimous.
Alert Indicators
- 🔄 Conflicting Decisions – Resolves divergent state definitions of “Aravali Hills and Ranges”
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Adopts ICFRE-based ecological assessment model from Saranda MPSM case