Why the Supreme Court’s Aravalli order is being misread

Since the Supreme Court’s order of 20 November 2025, the Aravalli mountain range has become the center of a nationwide digital storm, amplified by the #SaveAravalli campaign. The anxiety is understandable. The Aravallis are one of India’s most critical ecological buffers, a shield against desertification, a recharge zone for groundwater, and a biodiversity corridor spanning four states. What is not understandable is the widespread claim that the Court has diluted environmental protections or opened 90 percent of the region to commercial mining. That claim is legally incorrect and distracts from the real intent of the judgment.

The order does not promote mining. In fact, it temporarily halts all new mining leases in the Aravalli region until a Management Plan for Sustainable Mining (MPSM) is prepared by the Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education (ICFRE) under the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC). The plan will be developed through a scientific, institutional process that includes high-resolution mapping, zoning of vulnerable ecological segments, and a framework for long-term regulatory enforcement. A pause pending a sustainability management plan is not deregulation. It is the very opposite.

The most misunderstood part of the order is the “100 meters from local relative height” benchmark. This is not a parameter of ecological value, but a cartographic standardization tool to remove administrative ambiguity that historically allowed illegal mining to thrive under conflicting state definitions. It brings uniformity to mapping, not vulnerability to mining.

It is equally important to clarify what the order does not do. It does not override existing environmental laws. Forest land, wildlife corridors, ridge zones, Eco-Sensitive Zones (ESZ), and protected areas continue to be governed by their respective statutory regimes, including the Forest (Conservation) Act, the Wildlife Protection Act, and environmental clearance norms under the EIA Notification 2006 (as amended). To argue that everything below 100 meters is now de-protected is factually false.

Some critics claim that the Court has deviated from its earlier rulings around 2010. But the judiciary does not rule on ecology through slogans, it rules on evidence, enforcement failures, and regulatory gaps presented before it. In 2025, the core issue before the Court was illegal mining and weak state-level implementation. The remedy prescribed, standardized definition, new-lease moratorium, and landscape-level scientific planning, strengthens regulation. It does not weaken it.

Historically too, the Court’s posture on the Aravallis has been protectionist. In the landmark M. C. Mehta v. Union of India case, the Court recognized the region as a vital ecological barrier and restricted mining and groundwater exploitation in ridge areas. The institutional DNA of the Court has always favored conservation, not commercial extraction.

Policy Focus: The Road Ahead

If the judgment is to succeed, the focus must shift from outrage to outcomes. Three policy pillars are essential:

1. Scientific Boundary Mapping

Survey of India and ICFRE must complete micro-mapping using satellite imagery, LiDAR, and forest overlays.

Boundaries must be geo-referenced, publicly verifiable, and integrated into state master plans to prevent jurisdictional misuse.

2. Zoning-Based Protection, Not Altitude-Based Assumptions

MPSM must categorize the Aravallis into no-go, restricted, and regulated zones based on:

groundwater recharge sensitivity,

forest density,

species movement corridors,

soil erosion index,

and ridge vulnerability.

These zones must be codified into state land-use and mining policies, ensuring layered protection irrespective of elevation.

3. Compliance Reform & Enforcement Tightening

Create a multi-state Aravalli Protection Authority under MoEFCC for unified oversight.

Mandatory digital mining-lease registry linked to environmental clearances.

Real-time monitoring of forest loss and mining activity via remote sensing dashboards.

Criminal penalties for illegal extraction, transportation, and false reporting.

Integrate mining compliance into ESG norms for corporations operating near eco-sensitive belts.

The Larger Principle

The Court has done its job: it has stopped new leases, mandated scientific planning, and standardized mapping definitions. Now the baton lies with policymakers and regulators. The Aravallis will not be saved by hashtags alone, they will be saved by accurate demarcation, transparent zoning, strict compliance, and credible enforcement.

Misinformation, even when driven by good intentions, risks turning the debate away from accountability. The judgment is not the threat. The real threat remains what has always threatened the Aravallis: administrative ambiguity, illegal extraction, and weak enforcement. The solution is not to misread the order, but to implement it with policy precision.