Introduction
When the climate crisis lands in the courtroom, Indian judges are increasingly being asked to decide not only questions of law, but also the direction of the country’s climate policy. From Delhi’s air pollution to the issue of mining in the Aravalli hills, petitioners now frame environmental damages as violations of fundamental rights, pushing the judiciary from being mere arbitrators to become a central actor in shaping India’s climate policies.
The foundational shift in India’s long-standing environmental jurisprudence occurred in the case of Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P. (1985) where the Supreme Court has interpreted the right to life under Article 21 to include the right to a clean and healthy environment. This marked the beginning of a rights-based approach in the Indian Environmental Jurisprudence. Over time, this amplified interpretation has enabled the courts to actively adjudicate the issues related to environmental governance.
Understanding the Aravalli Hills
The Aravalli’s span approximately 650-800 km across Delhi, Haryana, Rajasthan, and Gujarat. It has survived billions of years of erosion and now appear rocky and sparsely vegetated, with sharper edges and lower elevations generally ranging from 300 to 900 meters. The Aravalli is divided into two parts- the Sambar-Sirohi ranges including Guru range on Mount Abu and the Sambar-Khetri ranges, consisting of three ranges that are discontinuous. In these hills lie rocks that capture the Earth’s evolution over more than 2.5 billion years. They hold evidenced of Earth’s first crust formation and are no short of a natural museum.
They act as a natural barrier against the expansion of Thar Desert in the north-western India by moderating rainfall, the scrubby forests and hills in the northern stretch help recharge groundwater aquifers that supply cities like Delhi with groundwater, they also help in improving the air quality in Delhi-NCR region. The hill is also important as a wildlife corridor and habitat for several endangered species like tiger, leopard, Indian wolf, Great Indian Bustard and it is also home to 22 wildlife sanctuaries, including three major tiger reserves. The Aravalli region is rich in minerals, with over 70 commercially valuable minerals including zinc, lead, silver, tungsten, marble, and granite.
Background of the Case
On November 20, 2025 the Supreme Court bench comprising of Justice B.R. Gavai, (the then Chief Justice of India), Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice N.V. Anjaria in their judgement (I.A. NO.105701 OF 2024) had accepted the recommendations of Aravalli Expert Committee formed under Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate change to evolve a uniform definition of Aravalli Hills. The committee suggested that only the landforms rising 100 meters and more, and two or more such hills within 500 meters will constitute Aravalli Range. The intention behind this judgement was to standardise the definition of Aravalli Hills across all 4 states namely, Delhi, Haryana, Rajasthan and Gujrat.
But this judgement immediately received backlash from environmental experts, lawyers and civil society group. The key reason for backlash was that the stakeholders had reasonable apprehension that most part of the Hills would fall outside this definition leaving a greater part of the Hills exposed to mining and deforestation. “If the definition as recommended by the Committee is accepted, all the hills below the height of 100 metres would be opened up for mining and as a result the Aravalli Hills and Ranges would lose their continuity and integrity.”, said K. Parmeshwar, the amicus curie to the court. He further said that if the definition as suggested by the Committee is accepted, it would totally endanger the environment and ecology of the mountains.
According to Indian Express, an internal survey conducted by the Forest Survey of India found that the majority of Rajasthan’s Aravalli hills would not fit the proposed definition by Aravalli Expert Committee. Only 1,048 of Rajasthan’s 12,081 hills were 100 meters or higher, according to the survey, leaving the majority of lesser ranges unprotected.
In subsequent press releases, the Ministry of Environment justified its recommendation, saying that, “the entire ecological unit is protected” by defining the hill as being 100 meters above ground, including its foothills and slopes. This keeps slopes and foothills—which are essential for soil stability, water recharge, and vegetation cover from being exploited piecemeal. It further stated that the defining of a range will guarantee that “smaller hillocks between major peaks are also safeguarded”.
The Constitutional Dilemma
The Aravalli fiasco is not merely an environmental litigation but a matter of constitutional concern. Their degradation directly affects water security, air quality, climate resilience and biodiversity. Such kind of natural resource are protected by Indian Constitution, particularly by Articles 48A and 51(g). Article 48A imposes a duty on the state to protect and improve the environment, and Article 51(g) imposes a corresponding duty on the citizens. In Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P. (1985) , the Supreme Court unequivocally held that the right to life under Article 21 includes the right to a clean and healthy environment. So therefore, any regulatory framework that leads to environment degradation directly violates Article 21.
Against this constitutional backdrop, redefining the Aravalli range in a manner that potentially exposes more than 90% of Aravalli vulnerable to mining cannot be described as an impartial administrative action. When such narrow definition jeopardize nature then courts are constitutionally obliged to assess their real impact rather than only their legal validity. Indian environmental jurisprudence has consistently rejected formalistic approaches to ecological protection. In the case of M.C. Mehta vs Union of India (Aravalli mining matter) the Supreme Court imposed restriction over mining in Aravalli hills, recognising the irreversible damages of unchecked exploitation. The court reiterated that economic development cannot override environmental protection concerns.
Also, under Article 14, the state actions must satisfy test of arbitrariness. A uniform definition that is only based on elevation without taking into consideration the environmental impact fails the test of rational nexus. Environmental harm once done is irreversible, so it requires rigorous judicial scrutiny. The question of environmental protection cannot be viewed in isolation only with technical necessity without giving due consideration to environmental context and constitutional values.
Foundational Principles of Environmental Jurisprudence
This case once again lays emphasis on the 3 foundational principle of Indian Environmental Jurisprudence. The three core principles are, public trust principle, precautionary principle, polluter pays principle and principle of sustainable development.
The public trust principle evolved in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, in this case the Supreme Court laid down the public trust principle and said that the State is the trustee and custodian of all kinds of natural resources of its country and is responsible for their protection and cannot allow their degradation for private exploration. The Aravalli case also squarely falls within this principle. The judicial approval of a classification which facilitate private exploitation of hills must be thoroughly scrutinized.
Secondly, the precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle was accepted to be a part of Article 21 in the case of Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, in this Supreme Court said that, “ Where there are threats of serious and irreversible damage lack of scientific certainly should not be used as the reason for postponing, measures to prevent environmental depredation.” The court also held that if a person or industry is carrying out a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity and any harm is cased them he will be absolutely liable irrespective of the fact where they took reasonable care or not. The court’s ruling reflect a departure from this principle as it allows harmful activities despite acknowledging the ecological fragility of the Aravalli Hills.
Thirdly, the principle of sustainable development was also laid down in Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, and then reiterated in the case of Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India and others(2000), says that sustainable development requires balancing economic activity with ecological preservation so that the present development acts does not compromise the ability of future generation to fulfil their needs. In the Aravalli case the Court allowed the continuation of existing mining activities and refrained from imposing a comprehensive ban, despite clear evidence of ecological degradation. This approach suggests a tilt in favour of developmental considerations and neglecting the environmental balance.
Beyond court
Following the agitation of civil groups the apex court set aside its November judgement and appointed a 10-member High Powered Expert Committee (HPEC) on March 3, 2026, to have a relook at the definition of the Aravalli’s. But ironically the new HPEC does not have a wildlife expert or a GIS expert which is the most essential requirement. The chairman of HPEC is involved in a controversial case of Green Credit Program. The other members are mostly administrative experts rather than environmental experts in the relevant fields.
The Aravalli Expert Committee was setup in May 2024, is headed by Secretary of Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate, and the members were Secretary of Department of Forests, of Delhi, Haryana, Rajasthan and Gujarat, a representative of the Forest Survey of India, Geological Survey of India (GSI) and CEC. Again in this committee there was no single member with domain knowledge in environmental and ecological areas. Surprisingly this committee also made some unscientific observation like the Aravalli are not as fragile as Western Ghats and Himalayas because they have historically coexisted with human settlement and resource based livelihood.
The Forest Survey of India prepared a report in 2010 using the 3-degree slope parameter for defining the Aravalli hills. This definition covered 62 district but still left about 60% Aravalli exposed to mining.
In the aftermath, the report of the amicus dated February 24, 2026 criticised the AEC report as unsigned, biased, and pro-mining, alleging suppression of the FSI report and deviation from conservation goals.
Conclusion
The Aravalli case reflects the trajectory of India’s environmental jurisprudence which is rich on paper, but is loosely implemented. From the early recognition of environmental rights under Article 21 to the evolution of doctrines such as the Public Trust Doctrine, Precautionary Principle, and Sustainable Development, the judiciary has consistently positioned itself as a protector of ecological interests. However, the recent approach in In Re: Issue Relating to Definition of Aravali Hills and Ranges reveals a subtle but significant shift. The increasing reliance on expert committees and techno-legal frameworks reflects both the complexity of environmental governance and the limits of judiciary.
Ultimately, the future of the Aravalli’s will depend on whether environmental principles are effectively translated into enforceable policy. Without this shift, environmental degradation would continue unchecked and the promise of environmental justice would be limited to courtrooms.
(This post has been authored by Saksham Singh, first-year student at Campus Law Centre, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi.)
CITE AS: Saksham Singh, ‘When the Nature Goes to Court: The Aravalli Hills and India’s Environmental Jurisprudence’ (The Contemporary Law Forum, 06 May 2026) <https://tclf.in/2026/05/06//when-the-nature-goes-to-court-the-aravalli-hills-and-indias-environmental-jurisprudence> date of access.