The Supreme Court's three-judge special vacation bench on Monday in its order stayed the operation of its earlier November 20 verdict -- delivered by the then CJI B R Gavai -- which had restricted the definition of the Aravalli range to landforms rising at least 100 metres above the local terrain.
"We direct that the recommendations of the committee and findings of the Supreme Court shall remain in abeyance till then. The case to be taken up on January 21, 2026," said the three-judge bench of the apex court, headed by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant.
The apex court passed the order on Monday, after taking suo motu cognisance of the issue on Saturday and decided to take up the issue today.
Noting that it wanted to revisit the contentious issue surrounding the identification and protection of the Aravalli range, the top court proposed the constitution of a high-powered expert committee -- including domain specialists -- to comprehensively re-examine questions relating to the height, extent, and ecological significance of the Aravallis.
While issuing notice to the Union Government, the concerned States, and the amicus curiae, the top court clarified that there was a need to examine whether the restrictive demarcation approved last month would broaden the scope of areas where activities like mining can be permitted.
During the course of the hearing, the Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta submitted to the apex court that there were a lot of misconceptions regarding orders, the government's role, etc. "An expert committee was constituted, and a report was given which the court accepted," Mehta said.
Hearing these contentions from the senior law officer, the CJI said that the recommendations of the proposed expert committee and any consequent findings of the Supreme Court shall remain in abeyance until further orders.
The Court also stated that a committee of experts will be constituted to study the environmental impact and assessment of the recommendations made by an earlier committee that was mostly comprised of bureaucrats.
The November 20 ruling was pronounced by the top court in a suo motu matter linked to the long-running TN Godavarman Thirumulpad environmental litigation, as it accepted a ban on mining in core or inviolate areas, while restricting the mining activities as outlined by the committee and strictly following the law being followed to do so.
The apex court took the matter on suo motu basis, after a hue and cry by the public, environmentalists, civil society members and others expressing their apprehensions about the revised definition of the Aravalli hills, which may cause illegal mining and impact groundwater level among others.
In its judgment on November this year, the bench led by the then Chief Justice BR Gavai (Now retired) accepted the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) committee's recommended operational definition for the Aravali Hills and Ranges in the context of mining.
The Supreme Court had, in its verdict, emphasised that uncontrolled mining here poses a “great threat to the ecology of the nation” and directed uniform criteria to safeguard it. Their conservation is thus vital for ecological stability, cultural heritage, and sustainable development.
The court had earlier directed the Centre to prepare a comprehensive Management Plan for Sustainable Mining before any new mining activity is permitted in the ecologically fragile region.
Aravalli Hills are among India’s oldest geological formations, stretching from Delhi through Haryana, Rajasthan, and into Gujarat. Historically, they have been recognised across 37 districts by state governments, with their ecological role noted as a natural barrier against northern desertification and a protector of biodiversity and water recharge.
In the same issue, social and environmental activist & lawyer Hitendra Gandhi wrote a letter to CJI Kant, seeking review of 100 Metre test rule pertaining to Aravalli issue. Gandhi also wrote a letter to the President of India in this regard.
"Low ridges, water recharge areas have to be protected. 100 Metre rule risks excluding large ecologically integral parts that may not meet numerical height threshold but remain functionally critical," the letter of Gandhi said.