Citizens’ Group Warns Aravalli Assessment May Be Rushed After Supreme Court Rejects Committee’s Six-Month Extension
A citizens’ group working for the protection of the Aravalli hills has raised concerns that the Supreme Court’s decision to deny a six-month extension to its High-Powered Committee could put pressure on the panel to complete a highly complex ecological assessment within an unusually short timeframe. The Supreme Court has instead directed the committee to submit its final report by November 30, 2026.
The controversy centres on how the Aravalli hills and ranges should be scientifically defined and delineated. The question is particularly important because the eventual definition could influence the extent of environmental protection available to large parts of the ancient mountain system across Delhi, Haryana, Rajasthan and Gujarat, including areas facing mining, quarrying, urbanisation and other forms of development pressure.
The Supreme Court-appointed High-Powered Committee had sought six additional months, asking for time until February 28, 2027. In its August 31 compliance report, the panel said that its work had demonstrated that the Aravallis could not responsibly be identified through a single terrain-based measurement. It proposed an ecosystem-based approach that would examine the wider ecological landscape rather than simply identifying individual hills.
The committee’s proposed “Aravalli Ecosystem Landscape” framework is significantly broader than a conventional geographical mapping exercise. It seeks to bring together forests, water systems, biodiversity, ecological connectivity, wetlands, groundwater-recharge areas, sacred sites, traditional pastures, protected areas and other ecological and socio-cultural features associated with the range.
The panel has also cautioned against releasing numerical estimates before the underlying datasets, methodology and analytical parameters have been adequately tested. According to its report, differences in digital elevation models, processing techniques and spatial parameters could substantially alter estimates concerning the area and number of hills, potentially producing consequences for conservation, mining regulation and local livelihoods.
The citizens’ group Aravalli Virasat Jan Abhiyaan has therefore questioned whether the remaining period is sufficient for the kind of scientific validation and fieldwork contemplated by the committee itself. The group argues that the assessment involves interconnected geological, ecological, hydrological, cultural and socio-economic questions that cannot be conclusively resolved merely through desk-based mapping.
The organisation has specifically called for additional field assessments and broader consultation with people living across the Aravalli landscape. It says local communities, farmers, pastoralists, tribal groups, civil society organisations, government agencies and other stakeholders affected by mining and land-use changes should have meaningful opportunities to place their concerns before the committee.
The demand for wider consultation comes against the backdrop of the enormous range of interests involved. The committee had received around 680 electronic and physical representations by August 26 from farmers, pastoralists, residents, civil society organisations, statutory bodies and mining-sector stakeholders. The submissions raised concerns involving mining, stone quarrying, stone crushing, sand mining, water and air quality, biodiversity, agriculture, settlements and community livelihoods.
The group has also pointed to the need for independent scientific validation. The committee itself has identified institutions such as the National Remote Sensing Centre and the Indian Space Research Organisation as potentially important for reviewing and validating its methodology and findings. Such verification is significant because the ultimate assessment could influence which areas receive environmental protection and which areas remain vulnerable to regulatory or commercial pressures.
The urgency surrounding the present proceedings is partly rooted in an earlier controversy over the definition of the Aravallis. In 2025, a previous exercise involving a 100-metre elevation criterion came under strong environmental criticism. The Supreme Court subsequently stayed implementation of that approach after concerns were raised about whether such a definition could leave large portions of the Aravalli landscape outside meaningful environmental protection.
That history has made scientific accuracy particularly important in the present exercise. The latest committee has specifically argued that the Aravallis should be viewed as a connected ecological system, in which even relatively isolated hills or hillocks may possess independent hydrological, ecological, cultural or aesthetic significance.
The Supreme Court, however, has taken a firm position on the timetable. During the September 7 hearing, Chief Justice Surya Kant rejected the request for a six-month extension and directed the panel to complete its work by November 30. The Bench warned that failure to meet the deadline could result in the committee being reconstituted.
The Chief Justice also expressed dissatisfaction with the delay, observing that the committee’s requested extension would effectively take the matter close to his retirement. The Court’s remarks reflected its desire to prevent an important environmental matter from remaining unresolved indefinitely.
The committee is consequently facing a difficult balance. On one side is the Supreme Court’s demand for a definitive and timely report. On the other is the panel’s own assessment that the scientific and socio-economic dimensions of the Aravalli landscape require further verification, field investigation and consultation before a final framework can be considered defensible.
For environmental campaigners, the concern is not simply about completing a report on time. The larger issue is what definition ultimately emerges from the exercise and whether that definition adequately captures the ecological functions of the entire Aravalli system. A narrowly drawn boundary could have consequences for forests, groundwater recharge, wildlife movement, agriculture and communities dependent on the landscape.
The next stage of the Supreme Court proceedings will therefore be closely watched. The committee is now expected to work towards the November 30 deadline, with the matter scheduled to return before the Court on December 2, 2026. The final report could become a crucial document in determining how India’s oldest major mountain system is mapped, regulated and protected in the years ahead.
