Aravalli Hills Case: Supreme Court Verdict (Including December 2025 ‘100-Metre Rule’). Important for Civil Serices Exams
I. Timeline of Key Supreme Court Hearings & Orders on Aravalli Hills
1995–2002 | Origin of Judicial Intervention
- Public Interest Litigations (PILs) filed highlighting illegal mining and environmental degradation in the Aravalli Hills.
- The Supreme Court of India begins monitoring mining activities, particularly in the Haryana–Rajasthan belt.
2009–2011 | Strengthening of Mining Restrictions
- Supreme Court orders a ban on mining in notified forest areas of the Aravallis.
- Lays down a landmark principle:
Forest character of land is decisive, not revenue or ownership classification.
2018 | Crackdown on Illegal Mining
- Court reiterates that land classified as “Gair Mumkin Pahar” must be treated as forest land.
- Mining without forest clearance and environmental clearance declared illegal.
2021–2023 | State Attempts to Dilute Protection
- Haryana and Rajasthan attempt to redefine Aravalli land through executive policies and legislative changes.
- Supreme Court stays dilution attempts and directs strict adherence to environmental laws and earlier judgments.
Nov–Dec 2025 | Landmark ‘100-Metre Height’ Verdict
- Bench led by the Chief Justice accepts an expert committee’s scientific definition:
Definitions approved:
- Aravalli Hill: Any landform with an elevation ≥100 metres above surrounding local relief.
- Aravalli Range: Two or more such hills located within 500 metres of each other.
- Protection extends to slopes, foothills, and enclosed contours.
Key Directions:
- Uniform definition applicable across states
- No new mining leases until a Management Plan for Sustainable Mining (MPSM) is prepared
- Existing mines to operate only under strict environmental compliance
Post-Verdict (Dec 2025 onwards)
- Review petitions and public protests filed by environmental groups.
- Union Government clarifies that core and ecologically sensitive areas remain protected.
- Matter remains under judicial and public scrutiny.
II. Background: Aravalli Hills Environmental Litigation
The Aravalli Hills, stretching nearly 700 km across Gujarat, Rajasthan, Haryana, and Delhi, are among the oldest mountain ranges in the world.
They perform vital ecological functions:
- Groundwater recharge for north-western India
- Climate moderation and dust control
- Prevention of desertification
- Biodiversity support and ecological connectivity
Decades of unregulated mining, urbanisation, and construction severely degraded the region, prompting sustained judicial intervention, notably in cases such as M.C. Mehta v. Union of India.
III. What the Supreme Court Decided in 2025
The ‘100-Metre Rule’
In late 2025, the Court approved a uniform, scientific definition of Aravalli Hills to resolve inconsistencies across states.
Purpose of the new definition:
- Eliminate conflicting state-level interpretations
- Bring regulatory certainty
- Enable preparation of a sustainable mining framework
- Temporarily halt new mining activities until safeguards are in place
Existing legal mines were allowed to operate only with enhanced environmental safeguards.
IV. Why the 100-Metre Rule Matters
The rule was intended to:
- Provide an objective, measurable criterion
- Improve enforcement consistency across Haryana, Rajasthan, Gujarat, and Delhi
- Balance environmental protection with regulated economic activity
However, it also reduced reliance on ecological characteristics alone, shifting emphasis toward elevation-based classification.
V. Controversy & Public Reaction
Criticism by Environmentalists and Civil Society
- The 100-metre threshold may exclude many low-lying but ecologically vital ridges and outcrops.
- Forest Survey mappings suggest only 8–10% of formations meet the height criterion.
- Nearly 90% of historically identified Aravalli formations risk losing automatic protection.
- Potential exposure to mining and real-estate pressure.
This led to:
- Public protests and campaigns (e.g., #SaveAravalli)
- Review petitions warning of grave ecological consequences
VI. Government & Official Response
- Union Environment Ministry clarified:
- No new mining will be allowed in core, protected, or ecologically sensitive areas.
- Centre asserted that:
- Over 90% of the Aravalli landscape remains protected
- Concerns of large-scale deregulation are “misplaced”
VII. Fallouts of the Verdict
1. Environmental & Ecological
- Possible reduction in protection for low-elevation zones
- Risk of groundwater depletion and desertification
- Disruption of wildlife corridors and micro-climate regulation
2. Legal & Governance
- Shift toward scientific/objective environmental regulation
- Increase in review petitions and environmental litigation
- Ongoing judicial oversight
3. Political & Public
- Politicisation of the issue
- Allegations of state–mining nexus
- Heightened citizen activism and awareness
VIII. Impact Assessment
| Aspect | Likely Impact |
| Legal clarity | Uniform definition and regulatory certainty |
| Ecological protection | Potential narrowing for low-lying areas |
| Mining regulation | Freeze on new leases; stricter compliance |
| Public response | Strong activism and judicial engagement |
| Climate & groundwater | Long-term risks if protection weakens |
IX. Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s 2025 ‘100-metre rule’ verdict marks a significant shift in Aravalli governance by introducing a uniform, scientific definition for regulatory clarity. While it strengthens objective enforcement and sustainable mining oversight, it has also triggered serious concerns regarding the exclusion of ecologically sensitive low-lying formations. The ruling thus represents a critical but contested attempt to balance environmental protection with economic regulation, and its long-term impact will depend on careful implementation and continued judicial vigilance.
