Following the Supreme Court’s order of November 20, 2025, widespread public concern has emerged on social media through the #SaveAravalli campaign regarding the Aravalli mountain range. This concern is understandable given the ecological significance of the Aravallis, the oldest mountain range in India. However, the perception that the court has weakened environmental protection or paved the way for large-scale mining is legally incorrect and obscures the true intent of the court’s order.
In fact, the order does not promote mining in any way. On the contrary, the Supreme Court has further tightened regulatory controls. The order places a complete moratorium on new mining leases in the Aravalli region until a Management Plan for Sustainable Mining (MPSM) is prepared for the entire landscape. This plan is to be developed by the Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education (ICFRE), under the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, through a scientific and institutional process. This cannot be construed as a pro-mining step by any stretch of the imagination.
The most controversial aspect of the order—the “100 meters from local relative height” criterion—has been widely misunderstood. This criterion is not an ecological assessment but an operational mapping tool for mining regulation. In the past, varying and ambiguous definitions of the Aravallis by different states and departments facilitated illegal mining. The purpose of a uniform, map-verifiable criterion is to eliminate this administrative ambiguity.
It is also crucial to understand that the definition adopted for mining regulation does not override other environmental safeguards. Forest lands, wildlife corridors, ridge areas, Eco-Sensitive Zones (ESZs), and protected areas remain protected under their respective statutory laws. The claim that all areas below 100 meters in height are now outside the purview of protection is factually incorrect.
The most widely circulated claim on social media that “90 percent of the Aravallis have been opened up for mining” is not a judicial finding but propaganda based on speculation. The actual demarcation will depend on the mapping carried out by the Survey of India and the zoning determined under the MPSM (Mining Plan and Sustainable Management). Until these processes are complete, such numerical claims are nothing more than speculation.
Some critics also argue that the Supreme Court has deviated from its earlier orders issued around 2010. However, the court decides according to the circumstances. In 2025, the court was faced with the problem of illegal mining and weak enforcement spread across several states. In this context, directing a uniform definition, a moratorium on new leases, and landscape-level planning is an attempt to strengthen regulation, not weaken it.
History also confirms this approach. In the M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India case, the Supreme Court banned mining and groundwater extraction in the Aravalli and Ridge areas, recognizing that this region is a crucial ecological barrier. The court’s institutional stance has always been conservation-oriented with regard to the Aravallis.
Finally, the apprehension that this order will unleash uncontrolled construction activities wrongly conflates different legal domains. Land use planning, forest clearances, ESZ (Ecologically Sensitive Zone) norms, and environmental impact assessments remain in force. The November order does not alter these arrangements.
The real test now lies not in rhetoric, but in implementation. Transparent mapping, robust zoning, and strict enforcement are what will ensure the true protection of the Aravallis. Misinformation, even if spread with good intentions, risks distracting from this accountability.
