Over the past two days, scientists, environmentalists, policy experts, bureaucrats and conservation organisations across the country have submitted at least ten letters to the Chief Justice of India seeking modifications to a Supreme Court-appointed committee formed to review a judgment aimed at protecting the Aravalli Range.
The signatories have alleged that the newly constituted panel is biased, lacks independent domain experts and includes members with potential conflicts of interest. They have sought its restructuring and expansion to include specialists in environmental science, ecology, hydrology, public health and livelihood studies.
The committee was formed following a Supreme Court direction to review its earlier judgment on the Aravalli Range. Petitioners argue the existing framework could weaken environmental safeguards.
At present, the committee comprises retired officials and senior bureaucrats and functions under the Secretary of the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC). Critics point out that the same administrative structure had earlier defined Aravalli hills in a manner that excluded smaller elevations from legal protection, enabling mining activity in those areas.
Constituted on May 25, 2026, the new committee is headed by Kanchan Devi, Director General of the Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education (ICFRE). Its members include former senior officials from the Forest Survey of India, Geological Survey of India and the MoEFCC, along with academics from Delhi University and the Central University of Haryana, and special invitees from research institutions.
In her letter to the CJI, former IFS officer Prakruti Srivastava alleged that the committee’s structure raises concerns of impartiality, stating that its chairperson reports to the MoEFCC Secretary, creating a potential conflict of interest in reviewing a report linked to the same administrative hierarchy.
Environmentalist Dr. Ravi Chopra, who has earlier chaired Supreme Court-appointed committees, said the composition reflects an over-reliance on serving or retired officials, warning that such structures may lack independence and broader scientific representation required for addressing climate-related challenges in the Aravalli region.
Vanashakti, a conservation organisation involved in environmental litigation, argued that the panel does not meet the standards of a high-powered expert committee as envisaged by the Supreme Court’s earlier directions and lacks key domain experts such as wildlife specialists and GIS professionals.
Experts further noted that members lack on-ground expertise in key Aravalli states such as Haryana and Rajasthan, where mining and real estate pressures are significant. They also pointed to the absence of specialists in hydrology, micro-ecology and geotechnical sciences.
Signatories have also raised procedural concerns, stating that forest demarcation exercises under the Court’s Godavarman framework remain incomplete, which they argue is essential before redefining protections for the Aravalli Range.
Among those who have written to the CJI are environmentalists, geoscientists and activists from across the country, including representatives of conservation groups and academic institutions, who have urged a broader and more independent composition of the committee.