The Supreme Court on Monday declined to grant a six-month extension to the High-Powered Committee to submit its final report on the definition and protection of the Aravalli Hills.
The top court rejected the plea by the High-Powered Committee (HPC) and directed it to submit the report by November 30.
A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana directed the panel to submit issue-specific interim reports to enable the court to decide the matter and warned that in case of failure, it will reconstitute the committee.
“Let the panel work day and night to submit a report on the Aravalli issue, if they are unable to do that in two months, we will reconstitute the whole panel,” CJI observed.
The CJI also emphasised that the committee sought the extension "with the first stroke of the pen" and appeared to be waiting for his retirement.
In its plea, the apex court-appointed Aravalli HPC asked the top court to extend the deadline for submission of its final report by six months, saying it needs more time for a “comprehensive and defensible” assessment of the Aravalli range.
The bench said that the committee must hear all stakeholders, including tribal communities in Rajasthan and Gujarat, and may submit issue-specific interim reports to enable the court to resolve urgent questions separately.
The court then listed the matter for December 2.
On December 28 last year, amid a row over the definition of Aravalli hills approved by it, the top court took suo motu cognisance of the issue.
The committee, constituted through an order dated May 25, has been conducting an independent review of the Centre’s report on the definition and delineation of the Aravallis.
The deadline for the panel’s final report was August 31.
In its compliance report submitted on August 31, the committee said it needs to bring together spatial, ecological, geological, hydrological, socio-economic, and stakeholder evidence before arriving at its conclusions regarding the Aravallis.
“The committee has… reached the view that additional time is necessary to complete the scientific process of geospatial assessment, sensitivity analysis, expert examination, field and stakeholder validation, and synthesis required for a comprehensive and defensible report,” said the panel in its compliance report.
It has urged the top court to extend the deadline for submission of the final report to February 28, 2027.
In its compliance report, the panel says the issues regarding Aravallis extend beyond technical delineation and cannot be properly addressed through a “single terrain-based criterion or a single source of evidence”.
The matter originated from the Supreme Court’s November 20, 2025 ruling on mining activities in the Aravalli region. A Bench headed by then Chief Justice of India B R Gavai approved an elevation-based criterion suggested by an expert committee to identify the Aravalli Hills and Range for the purposes of regulating mining.
Under the formula accepted by the court, a landform in the Aravalli districts would qualify as an Aravalli Hill if it rose at least 100 metres above the surrounding local terrain. Two or more such hills located within a distance of 500 metres were to be treated as part of the Aravalli Range.
The court endorsed restrictions on mining in core and ecologically sensitive areas but stopped short of imposing a blanket prohibition. It reasoned that an outright ban could instead encourage unauthorised mining and result in the criminalisation of activities that could otherwise be regulated.
The definition subsequently came under intense criticism, with environmentalists and other stakeholders arguing that the elevation-based test could exclude a substantial portion of the Aravallis from legal protection.
There were concerns that more than 90 per cent of the region could effectively fall outside the safeguards and become vulnerable to mining.
Amid the controversy, the top court revisited the issue. On December 29, 2025, a bench headed by CJI Surya Kant put the November 20 ruling on hold and suspended the implementation of the earlier expert committee’s recommendations.
The bench observed that several of the concerns surrounding the judgment appeared to arise from uncertainty or lack of clarity in the directions issued by the Court. It also indicated that a fresh, independent assessment of the ecological consequences of the proposed demarcation may be necessary.
The court thereafter decided to constitute a new expert body to examine the issue afresh and recommend an appropriate methodology for identifying and defining the Aravalli Hills and Range.
(With inputs from PTI)
