The Supreme Court of India, in an order dated 20 November 2025, accepted the recommendations of an expert committee defining the Aravalli hills as landforms with a minimum relative relief of 100 metres. A Bench of Chief Justice BR Gavai, Justice K Vinod Chandran, and Justice NV Anjaria directed the creation of a Management Plan for Sustainable Mining in the Aravalli region while declining to impose a complete ban on mining activities across the range.
Background
The Aravalli range, stretching across Rajasthan, Haryana, Gujarat, and Delhi, has been the subject of prolonged environmental litigation concerning the balance between mining operations and ecological conservation. Illegal and unregulated mining in the region has caused significant environmental degradation, including groundwater depletion, loss of biodiversity, and destabilisation of geological formations.
A fundamental obstacle to effective regulation was the absence of a uniform, scientifically grounded definition of what constitutes the "Aravalli hills." Different states applied varying criteria, leading to inconsistent enforcement of mining prohibitions and environmental safeguards. The Supreme Court had constituted an expert committee to propose a standardised definition and recommend a regulatory framework for sustainable mining in the region.
Key Holdings
The Supreme Court directed the following:
Uniform definition adopted: The Bench accepted the expert committee's recommendation defining Aravalli hills as landforms with a minimum relative relief of 100 metres. This standardised geographic criterion replaces the patchwork of state-level definitions and provides a consistent basis for identifying areas subject to Aravalli-specific environmental protections.
Management Plan for Sustainable Mining: The Court directed the formulation and implementation of a Management Plan for Sustainable Mining in identified Aravalli areas. The plan must incorporate environmental safeguards, rehabilitation obligations, carrying capacity assessments, and monitoring mechanisms.
No complete mining ban: The Bench declined to impose a blanket prohibition on all mining activity in the Aravalli region. The Court observed that a total ban would be disproportionate and economically disruptive, particularly for communities dependent on mining-related livelihoods. Instead, the framework permits regulated mining subject to compliance with environmental standards.
State compliance obligations: The states of Rajasthan, Haryana, Gujarat, and the NCT of Delhi were directed to align their mining policies and enforcement mechanisms with the uniform definition and the Management Plan. Existing mining leases in areas falling within the 100-metre relief threshold must be reviewed for compliance.
Implications for Practitioners
This order establishes a workable regulatory framework for one of India's most contentious environmental disputes. Mining law practitioners and their clients should assess whether existing mining leases and operations fall within the newly defined Aravalli zone. Leases in areas meeting the 100-metre relative relief criterion will be subject to the Management Plan requirements and may need fresh environmental compliance assessments.
Environmental law practitioners should note that the 100-metre relief threshold provides a clear, scientifically measurable standard for litigation purposes. Disputes that previously hinged on contested geographic definitions can now be resolved with reference to topographic data, reducing subjective arguments about what constitutes the Aravalli range.
For state governments, the directive to align policies with the uniform definition requires legislative and executive action. Practitioners advising state mining departments should prepare for a transition period as existing frameworks are updated. The requirement for a Management Plan also creates regulatory advisory opportunities in the areas of environmental compliance, rehabilitation planning, and sustainable mining practices.