Of these, the Aravalli Range, a Paleoproterozoic-era fold mountain range, is considered the oldest.

In November 2025, the Supreme Court of India accepted the recommendations of a committee under the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change on the definition of the Aravalli hills, ostensibly, to protect the range. This definition categorised an Aravalli hill as a landform at least 100 metres above local relief, and an Aravalli range as two or more such hills within 500 metres. Although the judgment mandated a plan for 'sustainable mining' and prohibited new leases, mining of certain critical minerals was exempted. Environmentalists raised concerns that this definition would exclude a large portion of the Aravallis from protection, potentially causing irreversible harm.

Following protests, public criticism, and appeals for clarification, the Court took suo motu cognisance and kept its earlier judgment and the committee report in abeyance. A new, independent expert committee has been ordered to re-examine the definition and its ecological impacts. Until further orders, no new or renewed mining leases are permitted. This was a welcome correction, though a total ban would have sent a stronger message.

The 100-metre threshold was bad science; its acceptance by the Court also conflicted with environmental jurisprudence and could have exposed one of India's most critical ecological systems to the interests of greedy developers and fly-by-night operators. The fallout would have been catastrophic - ground flattened, forests destroyed, and aquifers clogged. The Court-directed Management Plan for Sustainable Mining and a proposed green wall - tree cover around the Aravalli Range, covering 29 districts of Gujarat, Rajasthan, Haryana, and Delhi to restore 26 million hectares of degraded land by 2030 - would have remained on paper. By declaring that land below a certain elevation as "not Aravalli", the policy and judgment effectively legalised destruction, before it was kept on hold.

The 'height rule' is unjustifiable from an environmental science perspective. Hydrology does not recognise altitude cut-offs. Groundwater recharge depends on rock fractures, soil cover, vegetation, watersheds, and drainage basins or slopes, features found abundantly in low-lying Aravalli ridges, and not peaks. Destroying them would result in a drastic fall in water tables, drying up of wells and ponds in the nearby villages, and even sporadic inundation. The heavy September floods in Gurugram - situated in and around the Aravalli hills - were also a result of unchecked urbanisation cutting into these ancient foothills.

The height-based definition becomes laughable more from a biodiversity standpoint - animals, birds, pollinators, and plant species rely on continuous landscapes, not isolated hilltops. Fragmenting "low" stretches breaks ecological connectivity and accelerates local extinction. Height-based zoning ignores decades of ecological research. The government needs to make its position on the matter clear and do everything under its command to protect the Aravallis, especially from those who argue that development comes with collateral damage to ecology, thus making a mockery of the government's policies and efforts in sustainable development.

These decisions are particularly concerning for the precedents they set. About 2,000 kilometres from the Aravallis, the Bannerghatta National Park in Karnataka is facing an existential threat as its eco-sensitive zone is sought to be reduced to 168.8 sq km from the original 268.9 sq km. It is only a matter of time before several other ecologically protected zones are handed over to mining and real estate sharks in the name of development.

The government, the opposition parties, and the civil society need to converge on these issues and show real intent on ecological security. Those who castigate this government should also look at their own past to assess the damage they have caused to the Aravallis and other such areas by sanctioning mining contracts and townships. These cities were neither built in a day nor under one government. The Aravalli Range and other mountains, water basins, rivers, and forests deserve protection as living systems, not as contour lines on a map or a political issue to spar over. They have to exist on the ground, not merely on the coloured pages of an atlas.

India's mountains, rivers, and forests are national commons. There must be a socio-political consensus on declaring them national assets and preserving them for posterity. Instead of placing this critical issue in a legal maze with long-drawn bureaucratic processes, the apex court would do better to issue an order in five words - the Aravallis are off limits.

The writer reads between the lines on big national and international developments from his vantage point in the BJP and the RSS.

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.