Unrest has flared across the northern part of the country after the Supreme Court redefined the Aravalli hills – one of the world's oldest mountain ranges stretching across the states of Rajasthan, Haryana, Gujarat, and Delhi.
According to the fresh parameters, endorsed by the court based on federal government suggestions, an Aravalli hill is any geographical feature with a minimum elevation of 100 metres (328 ft) from the adjacent land. Two or more such hills less than half a kilometre of each other, combined with the land between them, are classified as an Aravalli range.
Environmentalists argue that classifying Aravalli hills based on elevation could leave numerous shorter, vegetation-clad but ecologically critical hills unprotected from quarrying and development.
The central administration, however, maintains that the revised definition is designed to enhance oversight and establish consistency and not dilute safeguards.
The Roots of the Unrest
Over the past few days, peaceful protests occurred in cities including Gurugram and Udaipur, led by local residents, farmers, green activists, and, at times, lawyers and political parties.
A founder member of a key conservation collective stated that the new definition risks undermining the essential function of the Aravalli range in "preventing desertification, recharging groundwater and safeguarding local economies" in the northwestern region.
The shorter, vegetated hills perform a crucial function in preventing desertification, recharging groundwater and supporting livelihoods according to experts.
"This mountain system must not be categorized by height alone, but by its environmental, physical and weather-related role," noted an ecology advocate associated with the campaign to save the Aravallis.
He pointed out that, internationally, mountain ranges are classified by the roles they play, not by arbitrary elevation thresholds.
"Any feature that is structurally a component of the Aravalli system and serves a vital purpose in ecology or preventing desertification must be acknowledged as a component of the system, regardless of its height."
Activists are demanding that the government define Aravalli areas using scientific criteria, including geography, ecology, wildlife connectivity and climate resilience.
A campaigner cautioned that the court's new definition could encourage mining, construction and commercial activity, heightening the risk of environmental harm.
Political opponents have stepped up criticism, cautioning that the new definition could cause significant environmental degradation.
A senior politician declared that safeguarding the Aravallis is "fundamentally linked to Delhi's survival." A different official called the range the state's "life-support system," 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 asserted the new definition is meant to bolster governance and bring uniformity, noting that a clear, unambiguous definition was required to oversee extraction consistently across states.
It added that the new definition covers the whole mountainous region – incorporating slopes, associated landforms, and intervening areas – clearly safeguarding hill clusters and their connections.
The federal environment ministry clarified it is wrong to assume that mining will be permitted on all landforms under 100 metres.
The government says 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 added that mining remains prohibited in core "inviolate" areas – protected forests, eco-sensitive zones, and wetlands – aside from certain essential, national security, and nuclear minerals allowed by law.
The minister responsible for ecology said only about two percent of the 147,000 sqkm Aravalli range could potentially be mined, and only after comprehensive assessments and formal clearance.
Nevertheless, several of the demonstrating organizations say that protests will persist and that they are exploring legal options to challenge the court's new definition.
