100 m Aravalli rule accepted by Supreme Court amid differing expert views
100 m Aravalli rule became the centre of national attention after the Supreme Court accepted the government’s proposed definition for identifying Aravalli hills, a move that has raised questions within environmental and legal circles. The decision came even though the court’s own monitoring body had earlier indicated concerns over the limited scope of the definition.
The issue relates to how the Aravalli range should be officially identified for the purpose of environmental protection, particularly to control mining and construction activities. The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change proposed defining Aravalli hills as land rising 100 metres above the surrounding area. This proposal was placed before the Supreme Court in mid-October and was accepted by the court in November.
However, documents reviewed later showed that the Central Empowered Committee, a body created by the Supreme Court to oversee forest and environmental matters, had not formally examined or approved this definition before it was accepted.
100 m Aravalli rule contrasts with Forest Survey of India findings
100 m Aravalli rule differs significantly from an earlier technical definition prepared by the Forest Survey of India. The FSI had mapped the Aravalli range using elevation and slope criteria, identifying areas with a minimum slope of three degrees as part of the hills. This method covered a much larger geographical area, including lower hill formations that are now excluded under the 100-metre approach.
The FSI mapping exercise was carried out after it was engaged by the Central Empowered Committee under a Supreme Court order issued in 2010. According to this assessment, more than 40,000 square kilometres across several districts of Rajasthan were classified as Aravalli terrain. Environmental experts have argued that this broader definition is more effective in protecting the ecological continuity of the range.
In a written communication dated October 14, the Central Empowered Committee stated that the FSI definition should be adopted to ensure proper conservation of the Aravalli ecosystem. The committee also clarified that it had not examined the ministry’s new proposal before it was submitted to the court.
100 m Aravalli rule raises concerns over ecological protection
100 m Aravalli rule has sparked concern because environmental oversight bodies believe it may weaken long-term conservation efforts. The committee pointed out that defining hills only by a fixed height could fragment the geographical identity of the Aravallis and leave lower hill formations vulnerable to development and mining.
During court proceedings, the amicus curiae assisting the bench reportedly relied on the Forest Survey of India’s findings to highlight the limitations of the 100-metre definition. The presentation submitted to the court warned that the new approach could result in the loss of ecological integrity and make conservation enforcement more difficult.
Earlier in 2024, the Supreme Court had directed the environment ministry to form a committee to develop a uniform definition for the Aravalli range. While a representative from the Central Empowered Committee was part of this group, the committee later clarified that its collective view was not reflected in the ministry’s final submission.
View this post on Instagram
The Central Empowered Committee also stated that draft minutes of discussions were not shared with it before the ministry filed its affidavit, leading to confusion over whether the committee supported the proposal. Also Read: Craig McCracken and Lauren Faust shaped modern animation in a quiet powerful way
Conclusion
The acceptance of the 100 m Aravalli rule by the Supreme Court marks a key moment in environmental governance, but it also highlights gaps between technical assessments and policy decisions. As concerns continue over long-term ecological impact, the definition’s effectiveness in protecting the Aravalli range is likely to remain under close public and legal scrutiny.
