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 |
| Precedent Value | Binding |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms |
| Type of Law | Environmental Law / Mining Regulation |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi (3–8 sentences) | The Court held that environmental protection of the Aravali ecosystem demands a uniform, expert-backed definition. By accepting the Committee’s operational definition and its core-area mining prohibitions (with narrow exceptions), the judgment reaffirms the precautionary principle and existing obligations under the UNCCD. It mandates a geo-referenced Management Plan for Sustainable Mining (MPSM) by ICFRE before any new lease can be granted and directs strict compliance with the Committee’s safeguards for ongoing operations. No blanket ban is imposed, balancing ecological integrity against socio-economic needs. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Disparate State definitions of the Aravali Hills/Ranges led to conflicting mining permissions. A CEC report identified widespread illegal mining. The Court formed a multi-disciplinary Committee to propose a unified definition and sustainable-mining framework. Divergent definitions from FSI and the Committee were examined and the Committee’s recommendations were adopted, subject to an ICFRE-prepared MPSM. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | Union of India (MoEF&CC); States of Delhi, Haryana, Rajasthan, Gujarat |
| Persuasive For | Environment authorities; policy-making bodies; lower courts |
| Overrules | None |
| Distinguishes | State of Bihar & Ors. v. Pawan Kumar & Ors. – complete ban on mining not conducive |
| Follows | Prior Supreme Court orders in M.C. Mehta & T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad confirming expert-based environmental norms |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Supreme Court for the first time formally adopts a multi-stakeholder Committee’s operational definition of “Aravali Hills and Ranges” as binding.
- Mandate for an ICFRE-prepared Management Plan for Sustainable Mining (MPSM) across the entire Aravali before any new lease is granted.
- No new mining leases until MPSM finalisation; ongoing operations must comply with the Committee’s environmental safeguard prescriptions.
- Core/inviolate areas are off-limits to mining, with narrow exceptions for critical, strategic, atomic, and Seventh Schedule minerals.
- Emphasis on geo-referenced ecological assessment and cumulative-impact analysis under expert supervision.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Recognition of the Aravali’s ecological and climatic importance and India’s obligations under the UNCCD.
- Identification of conflicting State-level definitions and the need for a uniform, scientific definition.
- Review of FSI’s slope-based definition versus the Committee’s elevation-and-proximity-based definition.
- Adoption of the Committee’s definition and its recommendations on core-area mining prohibitions and sustainable extraction safeguards.
- Reliance on the Saranda MPSM precedent to require ICFRE’s geo-referenced ecological assessment for the Aravalis.
- Balancing ecological integrity with livelihood concerns, rejecting a blanket mining ban but mandating strict compliance.
- Final directions: accept Committee report, commission MPSM, bar new leases until MPSM, and enforce safeguards for existing mines.
Arguments by the Parties
Amicus Curiae (Petitioner’s Position)
- FSI’s technical definition should govern to preserve continuity of the range.
- Committee’s 100 m threshold excludes smaller hills, risking ecological fragmentation.
- Full Management Plan for Sustainable Mining needed before new leases.
Union of India (MoEF&CC)
- Committee’s definition covers a larger area, better protecting the ecosystem.
- Core-area prohibition and sustainable-mining framework align with conservation objectives.
- Supports commissioning ICFRE for an MPSM and geo-referenced assessments.
States of Haryana & Rajasthan
- Millions depend on mining; immediate halt to new leases or renewals harms livelihoods.
- Complete or prolonged bans fuel illegal mining and criminalisation.
Factual Background
Two related writ petitions challenged inconsistent mining rules in the Aravali Hills and Ranges across Delhi, Haryana, Rajasthan, and Gujarat. The Central Empowered Committee (CEC) reported extensive illegal mining. The Supreme Court constituted a multi-disciplinary Committee to propose a uniform definition and mining safeguards. After examining FSI and Committee definitions, the Court adopted the Committee’s recommendations, subject to an ICFRE-prepared Management Plan for Sustainable Mining before any new lease issuance.
Statutory Analysis
- UNCCD Articles 4, 5, 10 – obligation to prevent desertification, adopt integrated policy measures, conserve land and water.
- Environment (Protection) Act 1986 – ESZ/ESA notification powers.
- Wetlands (Conservation & Management) Rules 2017 – protection of water bodies.
- MMDR Act 1957 – classification of critical, strategic, atomic, and Seventh Schedule minerals.
- CAMPA – funding for mapping, restoration, and plantation.
Procedural Innovations
- Constitution of a high-level, inter-ministerial, expert Committee with secretaries of MoEF&CC and State Forest Departments, FSI, CEC, GSI representatives.
- Mandate for an ICFRE-prepared Management Plan for Sustainable Mining before granting new mining leases.
- Requirement for geo-tagged mapping and eco-sensitive zoning prior to lease issuance.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – the judgment reaffirms expert-based environmental regulation and the precautionary principle.