Preserving the Aravallis: Supreme Court’s Call for Environmental Protection

The Supreme Court emphasized the necessity of safeguarding the Aravallis on Thursday, instructing Delhi, Haryana, Rajasthan, and Gujarat to refrain from granting final approval for mining operations in the mountain range until further notice.

Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court observed discrepancies related to illegal mining and mining operations permitted by the states, particularly concerning the varying definitions of the Aravalli hills and ranges adopted by different states. It highlighted findings from a report by the Central Empowered Committee (CEC), which identified numerous instances of illegal mining across Rajasthan, providing detailed district-wise information on the extent of unauthorized mining. The court stressed the need for collaborative action by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) and all four concerned states—Delhi, Rajasthan, Haryana, and Gujarat—to address the issue of mining activities in the Aravalli hills.

Formation Of a Committee

The bench mandated the formation of a committee tasked with establishing a consistent definition of the Aravalli hills and ranges. The committee will include, among others, the Secretary of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC), the forest secretaries of the four concerned states, and one representative each from the Forest Survey of India (FSI) and the Central Empowered Committee (CEC). The bench stipulated that the committee must deliver its report within a two-month period.

Court’s Order

The bench acknowledged the arguments presented by advocate K Parameshwar, acting as an amicus curiae, that no new mining leases or renewals of existing ones should be allowed in the Aravalli ranges in Rajasthan and Haryana until further notice. However, it noted opposition from Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for Haryana, Additional Solicitor General K M Nataraj for Rajasthan, and an advocate representing the federation of mining associations in Rajasthan. They argued against the suggestion, highlighting the significant number of labourers reliant on mining activities in these states and expressing concerns about the potential adverse impact on their livelihoods. The bench recognized that a complete ban on mining could lead to illegal mining activities and might not be beneficial from an environmental perspective. Consequently, it scheduled the matter for further deliberation in August.