New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday kept in abeyance its November 20 verdict that had accepted a uniform definition of the Aravalli hills and ranges, saying the issue requires further examination and clarification.
A vacation bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant, along with Justices J K Maheshwari and Augustine George Masih, proposed the constitution of a high-powered committee comprising domain experts to conduct an exhaustive and holistic review of the matter.
“We deem it necessary to direct that the recommendations submitted by the committee, together with the findings and directions stipulated by this court in the judgment of November 20, 2025, be kept in abeyance,” the bench observed while hearing a suo motu case titled In Re: Definition of Aravalli Hills and Ranges and Ancillary Issues.
The apex court noted that several aspects of the issue require further clarification. It issued notices to the Centre and other stakeholders and posted the matter for further hearing on January 21.
In its November 20 order, the Supreme Court had accepted a uniform definition of the Aravalli hills and ranges and imposed a ban on the grant of fresh mining leases in the region until expert reports were submitted. The order covered areas across Delhi, Haryana, Rajasthan and Gujarat, aimed at protecting the world’s oldest mountain system.
The court had endorsed the recommendations of a committee constituted by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. According to the committee, an “Aravalli Hill” was defined as any landform located in designated Aravalli districts with an elevation of 100 metres or more above its local relief. An “Aravalli Range” was described as a collection of two or more such hills situated within 500 metres of each other.
The committee further clarified that the entire landform enclosed by the lowest contour, along with the hill, its supporting slopes and associated landforms, irrespective of gradient, would be deemed part of the Aravalli hills.
With the verdict now kept in abeyance, the court’s proposed expert committee is expected to reassess the scientific, environmental and legal dimensions of the definition before the matter is taken up again.
