Demonstrations have broken out across the northern part of the country after the Supreme Court issued a new definition for the Aravalli hills – among the planet's most ancient mountain ranges spanning the states of Rajasthan, Haryana, Gujarat, and Delhi.
Under the new definition, approved by the court based on central government suggestions, an Aravalli hill is any landform rising at least 100 metres (328 ft) above the adjacent land. A cluster of such hills less than half a kilometre of each other, combined with the land between them, are classified as an Aravalli range.
Ecologists assert that classifying Aravalli hills based on elevation potentially excludes numerous shorter, vegetation-clad but ecologically critical hills unprotected from quarrying and development.
The central administration, however, says that the new definition is meant to strengthen regulation and establish consistency and not weaken protections.
What is Sparking the Demonstrations?
Recently, peaceful protests were held in cities including Gurugram and Udaipur, led by community members, farmers, environmental activists, and, in some cases, lawyers and political parties.
An organizing member of a key environmental group remarked that the new definition risks undermining the essential function of the Aravalli range in "preventing desertification, recharging groundwater and protecting livelihoods" in northwest India.
The shorter, vegetated hills play a vital role in preventing desertification, recharging groundwater and sustaining communities according to experts.
"The Aravalli range should not be defined solely by elevation, but by its environmental, physical and weather-related role," noted an ecology advocate associated with the movement to preserve the Aravallis.
He pointed out that, globally, mountains and hill systems are classified by the roles they play, not by arbitrary elevation thresholds.
"Any feature that is structurally a component of the Aravalli system and serves a vital purpose in ecology or preventing desertification must be acknowledged as part of the range, irrespective of its height."
Protesters are calling for that the government define Aravalli areas using research-based parameters, encompassing topography, ecology, animal corridors and environmental durability.
One activist warned that the court's new definition could encourage mining, construction and commercial activity, increasing the threat of ecological damage.
Opposition parties have ramped up their censure, cautioning that the new definition might lead to serious ecological damage.
A senior politician said that protecting the Aravallis is "inseparable from Delhi's survival." A different official described the range the state's "lifeline," adding that without it, "a vast region up to Delhi would have become a desert."
The Government's Stance
India's federal government has sought to downplay these concerns.
In a official release, it said the new definition is meant to strengthen regulation and create standardization, noting that a single, objective definition was required to oversee extraction uniformly across states.
It added that the new definition covers the entire hill system – including slopes, related features, and connecting zones – explicitly protecting hill clusters and their linkages.
The national environment department said it is incorrect to assume that mining will be allowed on all landforms under 100 metres.
The government says areas inside the Aravalli hills or ranges are excluded from new mining leases, while current operations can continue if they adhere to sustainable mining norms.
It added that mining remains banned in core "protected" areas – protected forests, environmentally fragile zones, and wetlands – except for certain essential, national security, and nuclear minerals allowed by law.
The Environment Minister said only about 2% of the 147,000 sqkm Aravalli range could potentially be mined, and only after detailed studies and formal clearance.
However, many of the demonstrating organizations say that protests will persist and that they are considering judicial avenues to challenge the court's new definition.
