Demonstrations have broken out across northern India after the Supreme Court issued a new definition for the Aravalli hills – one of the world's oldest mountain ranges stretching across the states of Rajasthan, Haryana, Gujarat, and Delhi.
Under the new definition, accepted by the court following federal government recommendations, an Aravalli hill is any landform with a minimum elevation of 100 metres (328 ft) from the adjacent land. A cluster of such hills within 500 metres of each other, combined with the land between them, are classified as an Aravalli range.
Environmentalists argue that defining Aravalli hills based on elevation potentially excludes numerous lower, scrub-covered but vitally important hills unprotected from mining and construction.
The central administration, on the other hand, states that the new definition is designed to enhance oversight and establish consistency and not dilute protections.
What is Sparking the Demonstrations?
Recently, calm demonstrations occurred in cities such as Gurugram and Udaipur, organized by local residents, farmers, green activists, and, in some cases, lawyers and political groups.
A founder member of a key conservation collective stated that the new definition risks undermining the essential function of the Aravalli range in "halting desert expansion, replenishing aquifers and safeguarding local economies" in the northwestern region.
The lower, scrub-covered hills perform a crucial function in stopping desert creep, recharging groundwater and sustaining communities according to experts.
"This mountain system must not be categorized by height alone, but by its ecological, geological and climatic purpose," said an ecology advocate associated with the movement to preserve the Aravallis.
He pointed out that, internationally, mountains and hill systems are identified by the roles they play, not by arbitrary elevation thresholds.
"Any feature that is structurally a component of the Aravalli system and plays a critical role in ecology or preventing desertification should be recognised as a component of the system, regardless of its height."
Protesters are calling for that the government delineate Aravalli areas using scientific criteria, including topography, biodiversity, wildlife connectivity and climate resilience.
One activist warned that the court's new definition could encourage extractive industries, development and business projects, heightening the threat of ecological damage.
Political opponents have stepped up criticism, cautioning that the new definition might lead to significant environmental degradation.
One political leader said that safeguarding the Aravallis is "fundamentally linked to Delhi's survival." Another leader described the range the state's "lifeline," stating that without it, "a vast region up to Delhi would have turned into a desert."
Official Position
India's central government has sought to downplay these apprehensions.
In a recent communication, it said the new definition is intended to bolster governance and bring uniformity, adding that a single, objective definition was required to regulate mining consistently across states.
It further stated that the new definition covers the entire hill system – including slopes, related features, and connecting zones – explicitly protecting hill clusters and their connections.
The federal environment ministry clarified it is wrong to presume that mining will be allowed on all landforms under 100 metres.
The government states areas within the Aravalli hills or ranges are excluded from new mining leases, while current operations can continue if they adhere to environmentally sound practices.
It noted that mining remains prohibited in core "inviolate" areas – protected forests, eco-sensitive zones, and wetlands – except for certain essential, national security, and nuclear minerals permitted by law.
The Environment Minister indicated only about two percent of the 147,000 sqkm Aravalli range might be open to extraction, and only after detailed studies and official approval.
However, many of the protesting groups contend that protests will persist and that they are considering legal options to contest the court's new definition.
