Aravalli hills row: Environment minister welcomes SCs stay on new definition; extends support

NEW DELHI: Union environment minister Bhupender Yadav on Monday welcomed the Supreme Courts direction to stay its order on the new definition of the Aravalli range that was widely criticised across the spectrum.

The minister said the government was committed to extending all assistance sought from MOEFCC (Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change) in the protection and restoration of the Aravalli range.

I welcome the Supreme Court directions introducing a stay on its order concerning the Aravalli range, and the formation of a new committee to study issues. We stand committed to extending all assistance sought from MOEFCC in the protection and restoration of the Aravalli range. As things stand, a complete ban on mining stays with regards to new mining leases or renewal of old mining leases, the minister wrote on X.

The ministers comments come days after he held a press conference amid outrage over the new definition of the Aravali hills, where he said no new mining leases would be permitted in core, protected and ecologically sensitive areas, including the NCR.

Speaking on the Supreme Courts acceptance of the new definition of Aravalli, the minister had said: The ruling recognises and endorses the Government of India’s sustained efforts to protect the Aravalli range through scientific assessment, strict safeguards and initiatives such as the Aravalli Green Wall Project.

The controversy erupted after the Supreme Court, in November, agreed with a proposal by the central government on how the Aravalli hills should be officially identified.

The court said that only those hills that rise at least 100 metres above the surrounding land, or groups of such hills located close to each other, will be considered part of the Aravalli range for regulatory purposes.

In the ruling, the Supreme Court had accepted a standard definition proposed by the central government to identify what qualifies as the Aravalli Hills.

While the move was intended to bring clarity to long-standing disputes, the definition’s limited ecological lens raised fresh concerns about environmental protection and sustainable development.

Readers Comments