Aravallis need the Supreme Court’s shield

The threats to the Aravallis are well documented. On more than one occasion in the past 30 years, the Supreme Court has ruled against violations of environmental norms in the mountain range. Last year, the Court found that the inconsistency in criteria used to define the hills was one of the major reasons for illegal quarrying in the Aravallis. It asked the Union environment ministry to establish a committee to frame a scientifically grounded definition of the mountain range. The panel submitted its report in October, and the apex court gave its imprimatur about a month later. However, the new criteria to define the Aravalli hills — only landforms at an elevation of 100 metres or more should be considered as part of the mountain system — has invited controversy. Fears of the destruction of the country’s oldest mountain range have triggered protests in several parts of Rajasthan.

The yardstick now accepted by the Court goes against the red flags raised by expert agencies, including — as pointed out by a report in this newspaper — its own amicus curiae and the CEC, the panel that advises the SC on environment-related matters and monitors the compliance of its orders. The environment ministry’s agency, the Forest Survey of India, had told the ministry that the 100-metre height filter would exclude 91.3 per cent of 12,081 Aravalli hills 20 metres or higher, spread across 15 districts in Rajasthan. The FSI’s internal assessment also shows that if all 1,18,575 Aravalli hills are considered, over 99 per cent will not meet the new criteria.

Several reports — including a survey by SC’s CEC in 2018 — have underlined that the Aravallis have lost a fourth of their hills. The SC’s past rulings have pointed out that the destruction of the hills could lead to the Thar desert expanding towards the Indo-Gangetic plains and worsen air pollution in Delhi-NCR. However, its acceptance of a definition that effectively reduces a range stretching over more than 650 km to a few scattered hills does not square with the SC’s formidable jurisprudence on not just the Aravallis but on environmental matters at large. From the verdict in the M C Mehta case (1996), which emphasised strict enforcement of the polluter pays principle, to the landmark judgment last year, which recognises that people have a right to be protected against the destruction of nature, the Court has been a steadfast supporter of ecological concerns. In the wake of the impasse over what constitutes the Aravallis, the SC should continue to do what its own experts have emphasised — shield the mountain range.

Overall Analysis

This editorial critically examines the Supreme Court’s recent acceptance of a new definition of the Aravalli hills and argues that it weakens environmental protection for one of India’s oldest mountain ranges. The author begins by recalling the Court’s long history of intervening to protect the Aravallis, establishing the judiciary as a key guardian against environmental degradation. This contextual grounding lends moral and institutional weight to the critique that follows.

The central concern of the editorial is the new criterion that defines Aravalli hills as landforms with an elevation of 100 metres or more. The author argues that this definition is arbitrary and scientifically flawed, as it excludes a vast majority of the hills from protection. By citing data from expert bodies like the Forest Survey of India, the CEC, and the Court’s own amicus curiae, the editorial uses evidence-driven language to show how the new benchmark contradicts expert advice and ground realities.

The article then broadens the argument by linking the degradation of the Aravallis to wider ecological consequences, such as desertification and worsening air pollution in Delhi-NCR. This shift underscores that the issue is not merely technical or regional but one of national environmental security. The language here is cautionary, emphasizing long-term risks rather than immediate legal technicalities.

In the concluding section, the editorial highlights an apparent inconsistency between the Court’s celebrated environmental jurisprudence and its acceptance of the contested definition. By referencing landmark judgments like the M.C. Mehta case and the recognition of the right to be protected from environmental destruction, the author frames the current decision as an aberration. The final appeal urges the Supreme Court to realign with its own legacy and continue acting as a shield for the Aravallis.

Overall, the editorial combines legal reasoning, expert testimony, and environmental concern to argue that the Supreme Court must correct course to prevent irreversible ecological damage.

Important Vocabulary (5)

1. Imprimatur – official approval or endorsement.
2. Yardstick – a standard used for comparison or measurement.
3. Amicus curiae – a legal expert appointed to assist the court.
4. Jurisprudence – the philosophy or body of law and legal principles.
5. Impasse – a situation in which no progress is possible.

Conclusion & Tone

The editorial concludes that the Supreme Court’s acceptance of a narrow definition of the Aravallis undermines decades of environmental protection efforts. It urges the Court to uphold its own legacy of ecological stewardship and safeguard the mountain range against further degradation.

Tone: Critical, reasoned, and cautionary, with a strong appeal to institutional responsibility and environmental ethics.