Protests have erupted across the northern part of the country after the Supreme Court redefined the Aravalli hills – among the planet's most ancient geological formations stretching across the states of Rajasthan, Haryana, Gujarat, and Delhi.
According to the fresh parameters, approved by the court following central government suggestions, an Aravalli hill is any landform rising at least 100 metres (328 ft) above the adjacent land. Two or more such hills within 500 metres of each other, combined with the land between them, are deemed to be an Aravalli range.
Ecologists assert that classifying Aravalli hills based on elevation could leave many lower, scrub-covered but ecologically critical hills unprotected from mining and construction.
The central administration, on the other hand, states that the new definition is designed to enhance oversight and bring uniformity and not weaken protections.
Why are People Protesting?
This weekend, peaceful protests took place in cities such as Gurugram and Udaipur, led by community members, farmers, environmental activists, and, in some cases, lawyers and political parties.
A founder member of a key conservation collective remarked that the new definition risks undermining the essential function of the Aravalli range in "halting desert expansion, recharging groundwater and protecting livelihoods" in northwest India.
The lower, scrub-covered hills play a vital role in preventing desertification, boosting water tables and supporting livelihoods according to experts.
"This mountain system must not be categorized solely by elevation, but by its ecological, geological and climatic function," noted an environmental activist associated with the movement to preserve the Aravallis.
He pointed out that, globally, mountains and hill systems are classified by the functions they perform, not by arbitrary elevation thresholds.
"Any feature that is structurally a component of the Aravalli system and serves a vital purpose in ecology or combating desertification must be acknowledged as part of the range, regardless of its height."
Activists are demanding that the government define Aravalli areas using research-based parameters, including topography, biodiversity, animal corridors and climate resilience.
A campaigner cautioned that the court's new definition could encourage mining, construction and commercial activity, increasing the risk of ecological damage.
Opposition parties have ramped up their censure, warning that the new definition could cause 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," adding that without it, "a vast region up to Delhi would have become a desert."
The Government's Stance
India's federal government has attempted to minimize these concerns.
In a recent communication, it said the new definition is meant to strengthen regulation and bring uniformity, noting that a clear, unambiguous definition was required to oversee extraction consistently across states.
It further stated that the new definition encompasses the whole mountainous region – incorporating slopes, associated landforms, and connecting zones – clearly safeguarding hill clusters and their linkages.
The federal environment ministry said it is wrong to presume 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 existing ones can continue if they follow environmentally sound practices.
It added that mining remains banned in core "inviolate" areas – reserved woodlands, eco-sensitive zones, and wetlands – except for certain essential, national security, and nuclear minerals permitted by law.
The Environment Minister said only about two percent of the vast Aravalli range might be open to extraction, and only after detailed studies and formal clearance.
However, many of the demonstrating organizations say that protests will persist and that they are exploring judicial avenues to challenge the court's new definition.
