There are some twists in the legal battle to save the Aravalli Hills. In a surprise development, on 20 November, the Supreme Court accepted a special committee’s definition that only hills above a 100-meter elevation above the surrounding land would be recognized as protected ‘hills’.
Following an outcry from the scientist community and grassroot movements, a vacation bench of the apex court, on 29 December, last year, paused its own judgement and said the issue warranted re-examination.
By and large, the higher courts, especially the Supreme Court, have been consistent sentinels against ecological degradation. The 20 November judgment marks a change in that approach when a bench led by the former Chief Justice of India BR Gavai signaled mining and infrastructure development would take precedence over environmental defenses.
The flip side has been greater citizen activism, especially from urban areas; something the government had not bargained for. When pausing the November judgment, Chief Justice Surya Kant mentioned public dissent as one of the factors that had nudged the court into staying its earlier judgment.
The stakes are high
The possible destruction of the Aravalli Range is a big deal. It is one of the oldest mountain systems, stretching through 800 kilometers covering the 4 states of Delhi, Haryana, Rajasthan and Gujarat. For eons it has formed a crucial ecological barrier separating the arid sands of the Thar Desert from the fertile plains in the south. As an acquifier it has prevented desertification while creating a vast green lung for the region.
For an old mountain system that has low peaks, the 100-meter height definition was a clever death sentence. The government’s own Forest Survey of India (FSI) report has noted that of the 12,081 documented Aravalli hills of heights measuring 20 meters or more, only 1,048, or just 8.7% exceed 100 meters.
Another survey by the Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment (ATREE), says more than 70 per cent of Rajasthan’s current Aravallis — covering 18,092 villages and spanning 83,380 square kilometres — are likely to be delisted under the new notification. In the case of Gujarat and Haryana, 82% of the hills risk denotification, while Delhi may lose its entire Aravalli buffer.
The rolling back of the protection the Aravalli Hills, enjoyed under the old Environment Protection Act and other state legislation, isn’t an isolated aberration.
The government had set their eyes on the mining deposits in the region particularly atomic minerals such as uranium and thorium, as well as rare earth elements such as tantalum and tungsten.
The Union government has recently in January 2025 launched the National Critical Mineral Mission aimed at developing “sustainable, resilient and self-reliant” mineral supply chains. No doubt, this is of economic importance. However, as the definition and the future of the Aravalli Hills goes back for re-examination, the courts must use the mountain of environment protection legislation, to protect the ecological balance. Sustaining human life well into the future must dominate other more near-term economic goals.
Real estate greed
In most cases, these near-term goals are nothing but real estate greed. As the density in cities increases and developable land for construction shrinks, builders and their allies in government begin to eye sensitive non-development zones in and around the city’s periphery. These could be mangrove forests along coastal regions, or forest zones abutting urban sprawls.
Currently in the news is the Bannerghatta National Park, near Bengaluru. In 2018, the Karnataka government had initiated steps to drastically reduce the declared, eco-sensitive zone (ESZ) from 269 sq kilometers to just 169 sq kms. This home for rich flora, and fauna, and serving as a carbon absorbing backyard for the overdeveloped city, has fallen prey to a lobby of real estate and mining interests.
The dereservation move has been challenged in the Supreme Court by a few activists in May 2025. The apex court had then appointed an expert panel to study the environmental impact of the government proposal. The panel is now in the process of visiting and studying the Bannerghatta Park..
Almost mirroring the Bengaluru proposal in Mumbai, the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC), has in October proposed a new master plan that will effectively destroy the Sanjay Gandhi National Park (SGNP) -- a verdant forest reserve on the northern outskirts of the city. The 106 sq kilometer park, perhaps the smallest in the world, serves as green lung for the densely populated city.
The new proposal is for the 48 % of the Park to be declared an eco-sensitive zone (ESZ). But there is a catch. The ESZ has been divided into 3 categories, of which two will allow construction terming these areas as ‘developable land’.
Today, the green pocket serves as a buffer against indiscriminate development and pollution. Any reduction in the size of the Park will make it unsustainable. As it is tribal and local hamlets around the SGNP are facing leopard attacks as the animal-man conflict has sharpened with the shrinking forests.
Ironically, these thousands of migrant families, who had been evicted from these forest areas, in defense of saving the national park, are today mute spectators to the same land being handed over for real estate development.
One must be wary not to be caught in the pitch of ‘development versus environment’. The only development can be one which will sustain human life in the long term; and, unfortunately, the only buffer that cares is the higher judiciary.