2025 INSC 1338 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

INHERENT/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

IN RE : ISSUE RELATING TO DEFINITION OF ARAVALI

HILLS AND RANGES

I.A. NO.105701 OF 2024

(CEC REPORT NO. 03 OF 2024)

IN

WRIT PETITION (C) NO.202 OF 1995

IN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD

…PETITIONER

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS …RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

B.R. GAVAI, CJI

IMPORTANCE OF ARAVALIS

1. In the present matter, we are concerned with the

definition of Aravali Hills and Ranges and the need for the

proper conservation of the same in the States of Delhi,

Haryana, Gujarat and Rajasthan.

2. The Aravali Range spanning across the aforesaid four

States is one of the oldest geological features on planet Earth.

2

It is one of the oldest fold mountains in India. It is rich in

wildlife, flora and fauna, and significantly influences the

climate and biodiversity across North India.

3. The scientific assessments of the Aravali Range

establish the fact that the Aravali ecosystem acts as a “green

barrier” and forms an effective “shield” against desertification

by preventing the eastward spread of the Thar Desert towards

the Indo-Gangetic plains, Haryana and western Uttar Pradesh.

PREVENTION OF DESERTIFICATION AND LAND DEGRADATION

4. The United Nations Convention on Combat

Desertification

1 was ratified by India on 17

th December 1996.

5. Article 4 of the said Convention requires the States,

which are parties to it, to inter-alia adopt an integrated

approach to address the physical, biological and socio -

economic aspects of desertification, promote the conservation

of land and water resources as they relate to desertification,

and to determine institutional mechanisms for the same.

6. As per Article 5 of the said Convention, India as a

signatory to the UNCCD, is required to strengthen the existing

laws, enact new laws as may be needed, and undertake long-

1

Hereinafter, “UNCCD”.

3

term policy measures and action programmes to combat

desertification.

7. A perusal of Articles 10(2)(c) and 10(4) of the said

Convention would reveal that national action programmes in

this regard are required to be framed and particular attention

must be given to preventive measures for lands that are not

yet degraded, or which are only slightly degraded.

8. In order to give effect to its commitments under the

UNCCD, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate

Change

2 issued a National Action Plan to Combat

Desertification and Land Degradation through Forestry

Interventions in 2023. The said Plan highlights the need for a

synergistic and convergent implementation of eco-restoration

initiatives in the country.

9. In recognition of the ecological importance of the

Aravali Ranges, the MoEF&CC has also launched the “Aravali

Green Wall Project”, an initiative aimed at restoring degraded

land, preventing desertification, enhancing green cover and

improving the ecological health of the Aravali landscape.

2

Hereinafter, “MoEF&CC”.

4

10. These cumulative obligations in international law

require that a uniform and streamlined approach be taken

towards the preservation and restoration of the Aravali

ecosystem including regulation of exploitation of the Aravali

Hills in a scientific and sustainable manner, guided by the

precautionary principle.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THIS COURT

11. This Court is seized of the issues with regard to the

Aravali Hills and Ranges in two sets of proceedings. The first

is in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Others

3 and the

second one is in T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad v. Union

of India and Others

4.

12. When T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad was listed

before this Court on 10

th January 2024, an issue arose for

consideration as to whether some of the mining activities were

falling in the Aravali Hills or beyond it.

13. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State of

Rajasthan on that day had raised an issue as to whether the

classification between the Aravali Hills and Aravali Ranges,

3

WP(C) No.4677 of 1985

4

WP(C) No.202 of 1995

5

insofar as the mining activities are concerned, needs to be

finally decided by this Court.

14. On similar lines, the learned Amicus Curiae had also

raised an issue as to whether continuation of the mining

activities in Aravali Hills and Ranges was in the larger public

interest or not. The learned Amicus had therefore suggested

that it will be appropriate if all the issues with regard to the

Aravali Hills and Ranges be examined by the Central

Empowered Committee

5 and directions be issued by this Court

in that regard.

15. We had, therefore, vide our order dated 10

th January

2024 requested the CEC to examine as to whether the

classification of Aravali Hills and Ranges insofar as permitting

mining is concerned, needs to be continued or not. We had

also requested the CEC to take on board the experts in geology

before finalising its report.

16. Vide the said order, this Court also noticed that the

issues with regard to the mining in Aravali Hills and Ranges

in the State of Haryana were placed before another Bench of

this Court hearing M.C. Mehta (supra) and the issues with

5

“Hereinafter, “CEC”.

6

regard to mining in Aravali Hills and Ranges in the State of

Rajasthan was being considered by this Court in the present

proceedings. We had, therefore, directed that both the matters

be placed before the then Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for

placing the same before one and the same Bench so as to avoid

any conflicting order(s).

17. In pursuance to the order passed by this Court on

10

th January 2024, the CEC submitted its report on 7

th March

2024 (CEC Report No.3 of 2024).

18. It will be relevant to refer to the recommendations

made by the CEC in its report i.e., CEC Report No. 3 of 2024,

which read thus:

“I. RECOMMENDATIONS

i) Mapping of the entire Aravalli Hill Range should be

undertaken and completed within a period of six

months by the Forest Survey of India, as per the

norms followed for the State of Rajasthan. The

National CAMPA may be directed to release funds

required for the mapping purpose. All the mapped

areas should be geo-tagged.

ii) Macro-level EIA study of all mining affected

districts of Rajasthan falling in Aravalli Hill Ranges

should be done by ICFRE and/or any other

competent national level central government

institution as was done in case of Karnataka in

compliance of the orders of this Hon'ble Court in

WP(C) 562/2009 dated 05.08.2011. The level of

mineral extraction should also be analysed along

with EIA study, on the basis of local requirement of

7

minerals, available infrastructure and environmental

concerns. This study can be completed in six months

period. The funds can be made available by MoEFCC

from the National CAMPA. Till this exercise is

completed no new mining leases or renewals of old

mining leases should be allowed in the Aravalli Hill

Ranges.

iii) Mining should be strictly prohibited in following

areas falling under such mapped Aravalli Hill Range:

a) Protected Areas including Tiger

Reserves declared under Wild Life

Protection Act 1972.

b) where ESZs of protected areas

mentioned in (i) above have been notified -

within ESZ and up to 1 km from the

boundary of these ESZ; and within 10 kms

of boundary of protected areas mentioned

in (i) where ESZ has not been notified.

c) all identified Tiger Corridors.

d) within 2 km radius/boundary of

perennial water bodies and wetlands

identified and notified as Ramsar Sites the

wetlands notified as per provisions laid

under Rule 3(b) of the wetlands

(Conservation and Management) Rules,

2017.

e) all areas where plantations have been

raised with funds from any government or

agency.

f) all those minerals where mining disturbs

larger volume of minerals and soils but

yields low revenue such as masonry stone.

g) areas which are falling within the NCR.

h) regions where there are proven or

potential water aquifers or aquifer

recharge areas or wherefrom groundwater

is sourced for irrigation and/or drinking

purposes.

8

i) Areas which have been identified as

DARK Zone by the Groundwater Board

such as Faridabad and Gurgaon.

j) within 10 km aerial distance on either

side of the inter- state boundary between

Rajasthan and Haryana States along

Aravali Hill range.

iv) All mining in forest areas falling in Aravali Hill

Ranges should be suspended and may be allowed

after completion of mapping of area and EIA study,

only in exceptional circumstances, and after due

permission from this Hon'ble Court.

v) The mining in other areas may be permitted only

after all the statutory clearances / approvals

including environmental clearance have been

obtained and renewals should also be done only after

grant of fresh environmental clearance.

vi) The States shall first identify all the abandoned

mining sites of area which exceeds one hectare, both

legal and illegal, within a period of six months.

Thereafter, the States shall prepare a site-specific

reclamation and rehabilitation plans for all these

sites and submit them along with the maps to the

CEC. Once these plans are approved, the States will

execute them in a time bound manner.

vii) Mines which have reached the groundwater level

should be closed to prevent destruction of

underground aquifers, wastage of water and

depleting of groundwater.

viii) The mining leases found to have been operated /

being operated without the requisite statutory

approvals/ permissions and/or found to have

exceeded permissible production limits and/or not

following the mining plan prescriptions should be

immediately closed and shall be liable to be

terminated. Also, no mining lease where any

condition of EC or any other statutory condition has

been violated, renewal should not be allowed in any

circumstances.

9

ix) Online Integrated Lease Management System

(ILMS) for computerized and network -based

management of mineral production and dispatch,

collection of royalty, issue of permit and generation

and submission of online reports involving mining

leases and crusher operations, on the lines being

followed by the State Government of Karnataka

should be implemented immediately.

x) The licenses to stone crushers may be given on the

basis of quantity of raw mineral available in the area

to prevent illegal mining and permit sustainable

mining as has been permitted by this Hon'ble Court

for the wood based industries (saw mills and plywood

factories).

xi) No crusher shall be located within 10 km. aerial

distance from the boundary of Aravalli Hill Range.

Clusters may be located in a cluster similar to an

industrial estate where all inward coming raw

material and outgoing finished/ processed product is

controlled and regulated on real time basis.

xii) Use of explosives in mining should be

discouraged and may be allowed where Indian

Bureau of Mines (IBM) certifies that its use is

essentially required.

xiii) Regular biennial evaluation of the cumulative

impacts of existing and proposed mining activities in

the entire Aravalli region should be ensured to

prevent exceeding the ecosystem's carrying capacity

xiv)Independent and transparent environmental

monitoring mechanisms should be established

preferably under the chairmanship of Chief Secretary

of the state to ensure compliance of all regulations

and also action taken where there are non -

compliances.

xv) In districts involving heavy mining a District Task

Force of Revenue, Forest, Police and Mining

Department should be constituted to control illegal

mining.”

10

19. In the meantime, in pursuance to the order passed by

this Court dated 10

th January 2024, the then Hon’ble Chief

Justice of India constituted a Special Bench comprising of

B.R. Gavai and Abhay S. Oka, JJ. (as they then were).

20. Upon perusal of the report of the CEC dated 7

th March

2024, this Court by an order dated 9

th May 2024 passed in

M.C. Mehta (supra) taken along with the present proceedings,

found that the issue with regard to mining activities in the

Aravali Hills and Ranges needs to be addressed jointly by the

MoEF&CC as well as all the four States i.e., National Capital

Territory of Delhi and States of Rajasthan, Haryana and

Gujarat.

21. Pertinently, this Court vide the aforesaid order also

noticed that one of the major issues with regard to the illegal

mining was on account of different definitions of “Aravali

Hills/Ranges”, as adopted by the different States.

We, therefore, directed that a committee be constituted for

providing a uniform definition of the Aravali Hills and Ranges.

6

6

Hereinafter, “Committee”.

11

22. It will be relevant to refer to the entire order passed by

this Court on 9

th May 2024, which reads thus:

1. Since certain matters from State of Rajasthan with

regard to mining in Aravalli Ranges and Hills were

pending before the Bench presided over by one of us

(B.R. Gavai, J.) and other matters from State of

Haryana were pending before the Bench presided

over by one of us (Abhay S. Oka, J.), the matter was

referred to the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India with

an observation that it will be appropriate that all the

matters are heard together so that the issues are

addressed commonly.

2. Accordingly, a Special Bench consisting of the two

of us has been constituted under the orders of the

Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India.

3. There are certain issues with regard to illegal

mining as well as mining under the permissions

granted by the States in Aravalli Hills/Ranges.

One of the major issues is with regard to the

different definitions of “Aravalli Hills/Ranges”, as

adopted by different States. The learned Amicus

Curiae states that insofar as the State of Haryana

is concerned, there is not even a definition of

Aravalli hills and ranges.

4. The Central Empowered Committee (CEC) has

submitted its Report No.3/2024, wherein certain

aspects have been pointed out. The Report also

points out various illegal mining activities carried

out throughout the State of Rajastan, district

wise details have been given with regard to the

areas under illegal mining.

5. In the report of the CEC, a report prepared by

the FSI is annexed. As per the Report of the FSI

the definition of Aravalli hills has been given as

the hill as well as the uniform 100 meter wide

buffer surrounding the downside of the hills.

6. We find that the issue with regard to the mining

activities in the Aravalli Hills and Ranges needs

12

to be addressed jointly by the Ministry of

Environment, Forest and Climate Change

(MoEFCC) as well as all the four State

Governments i.e. the Government of National

Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) and the States

of Rajasthan, Haryana and Gujarat.

7. We, therefore, direct that a Committee be

constituted comprising of the following

officers/officials to have a uniform definition of

the Aravalli hills and ranges:-

i. Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forest

and Climate Change, Government of India.

ii. Secretaries of the Department of Forests,

Government of National Capital Territory of

Delhi and the States of Haryana, Rajasthan and

Gujarat.

iii. A representative of the Forest Survey of

India.

iv. A representative of the Central Empowered

Committee.

v. A representative of the Geological Survey of

India.

vi. Joint Secretary, Ministry of Environment,

Forest and Climate Change, Government of

India, shall be the convenor of the Committee.

8. The said Committee shall submit its report within

a period of two months from today.

9. In the meantime, we also issue the following

directions, as suggested by Shri P. Parameshwar,

learned Amicus Curiae, to which Shri Tushar Mehta,

learned Solicitor General of India appearing for the

State of Haryana and Shri K.M. Natraj, learned

Additional Solicitor General of India appearing for the

State of Rajasthan, do not have any objection:-

i. Direct the Union of India through the

MoEFCC, State of Rajasthan, State of

Haryana and GNCTD to file affidavits with

details comments on the CEC Report

13

No.3/2024 and also the issues identified

hereinabove.

ii. The States of Haryana and Rajasthan

should specifically indicate what steps for

compliance of 15 (fifteen)

Judgments/Orders of this Court’s have

been taken by the respective States.

iii. The States of Haryana and Rajasthan

should specifically state what action has

been taken on the CAG/CEC Reports on

illegal mining and whether prosecution

under the relevant State Laws and

Recovery Process has been undertaken.

iv. The State of Rajasthan to specifically

state the actions taken pursuant to the

FSI Report dated 22.02.2018 where illegal

mining polygons have been identified.

v. The State of Rajasthan be directed to

reply to the FSI Report submitted to this

Court pursuant to Order dated

19.02.2010. The FSI Report dated

25.08.2010 and the CEC Report thereon

dated 25.10.2010 were shared with the

State of Rajasthan way back in 2010.

vi. The States of Rajasthan and Haryana

shall also state the extent and mapping of

all boundaries of mining areas (mentioned

in the mining leases) within the area of the

State.

10. Shri K. Parameshwar, learned Amicus Curiae,

has further submitted that until further orders are

passed by this Court, no fresh mining leases or

renewal of existing mining leases should be permitted

in Aravalli Ranges and Hills in the States of Haryana

and Rajasthan.

11. The said suggestion is opposed by Shri Tushar

Mehta, learned Solicitor General of India and Shri

K.M. Natraj, learned Additional Solicitor General of

India and Shri A.N.S. Nadkarni, learned senior

14

counsel appearing for the Federation of Associations

of Mining in Rajasthan. It is submitted that millions

of labourers are dependent upon the mining activities

carried out in these States. It is submitted that if the

order, as sought by the learned Amicus Curiae is

passed, it would have a cascading effect on the

livelihood of millions of labourers.

12. According to our experience and as has been

pointed out by this Court, in the judgment of this

Court dated 10.11.2021 passed in C.A. No.3661 -

3662/2020, a total ban on mining is not conducive

even to the interest of the environment, inasmuch as

it gives scope for illegal mining.

13. In that view of the matter, to balance the

competing interest, we find that the following

direction would subserve the purpose:-

“Until further orders, though all the States

in which Aravalli Ranges and Hills are

situated would be at liberty to consider

and process the applications for grant of

mining leases and also for renewal thereof

including obtaining statutory clearances

from the various authorities, no final

permission shall be granted for mining in

the Aravalli Hills/Ranges, as defined in the

FSI Report dated 25.08.2010, without

permission from this Court.”

14. Needless to state that this order in no way shall

be construed as prohibiting the legal mining

activities which are being carried out in accordance

with the valid permits/licences.

15. Needless further to state that our orders are

restricted only to the mining in the Aravalli

hills/ranges.”

[Emphasis supplied]

15

23. It appears that thereafter the matter was adjourned

from time to time so as to enable the Committee constituted

as per the order dated 9

th May 2024 to submit its report.

24. When the matter was, thereafter, listed on 12

th August

2025, by way of last chance, this Court had granted two more

months’ time so as to enable the Committee to submit its

report.

25. Accordingly, the Committee submitted its report via

the MoEF&CC on 3

rd October 2025.

26. We have extensively heard Mr. K. Parameshwar,

learned Amicus Curiae, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned

Additional Solicitor General appearing for the MoEF&CC,

Mr. Balbir Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

State of Haryana and Mr. K.M. Natraj, learned ASG appearing

for the State of Rajasthan.

27. The learned Amicus submitted that the Forest Survey

of India,

7 vide its Status Report dated 19

th August 2010

in pursuance to the order of this Court dated 19

th February

2010 in the present proceedings, has defined the Aravalis as

under:

7

Hereinafter, “FSI”.

16

“(i) slope >3°, (ii) foothill buffer = 100m, (iii) inter hill

distance or valley width= 500m and (iv) the area

enclosed by above defined hills from all sides.”

28. The learned Amicus submitted that the FSI is an expert

body in the field and there should have been no reason for the

Committee to not accept the definition as proposed by the FSI

and substitute it with another definition.

29. The learned Amicus placed before this Court the report

of the Committee and how the Aravali Hills and Ranges have

been sought to be defined for the purposes of mining.

The same is as under:

“7. Recommendations and Way Forward

7.1 Definition of Aravali Hills and Ranges in the

context of mining

7.1.1 The committee recommends following

operational definition of Aravali Hills and Ranges in

the context of mining:

Aravali Hills: Any landform located in the Aravali

districts, having an elevation of 100 metres or more

from the local relief, shall be termed as Aravali Hills.

For this purpose, the local relief shall be determined

with reference to the lowest contour line encircling

the landform, as per Para-5.1.1 above. The entire

landform lying within the area enclosed by such

lowest contour, whether actual or extended

notionally, together with the Hill, its supporting

slopes and associated landforms irrespective of their

gradient, shall be deemed to constitute part of the

Aravali Hills.

Aravali Range: Two or more Aravali Hills, as defined

at Para- 5.1.2 above, located within the proximity of

17

500m from each other, measured from the outermost

point on the boundary of the lowest contour line on

either side forms Aravali Range. The area between the

two Aravali hills is determined by first creating

buffers with a width equal to the minimum distance

between the lowest contour lines of both hills. An

intersection line is then generated between the two

buffer polygons by joining the intersection of both

buffer polygons. Finally, two lines, are drawn

perpendicularly from both endpoints of the

intersection line and extended till it intersects the

lowest contour line of both hills. The entire area of

landforms falling between the lowest contour lines of

these Hills as explained, along with associated

features such as Hills, Hillocks, supporting slopes,

etc., shall also be included as part of Aravali Range.”

30. The learned Amicus submitted that 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 Aravali Hills and Ranges would lose their

continuity and integrity. He, therefore, submitted that if the

definition as suggested by the Committee is accepted, it would

totally endanger the environment and ecology of the

mountains.

31. As against this, Ms. Bhati, learned ASG submitted that

if the definition of Aravali Hills and Ranges as suggested by

the FSI is accepted, it would exclude large areas from the

Aravali Hills and Ranges. She, however, submitted that the

18

definition as suggested by the Committee is adopted, a larger

area would be included as part of the Aravali Hills and Ranges.

32. Ms. Bhati further submitted that the Committee itself

has recommended that except in case of critical, strategic and

atomic minerals, the mining activities would be prohibited in

the core/inviolate areas. She further submitted that the

Committee has made various recommendations in order to

prevent rampant mining and permit only sustainable mining.

33. No doubt that the Committee, with the assistance of

the technical committee, has done a commendable work.

However, recently we had an occasion to consider a matter

with regard to Saranda Wildlife Sanctuary as part of the

present proceedings. In the said matter, we had noticed that

the MoEF&CC had got a study done by an expert body namely

Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education

8.

On the basis of the said study, the Management Plan for

Sustainable Mining

9 in Saranda and Chaibasa, Singhbhum

District, Jharkhand was carried out. In the said matter, we

had noticed that ICFRE’s geo -referenced ecological

assessment enabled the identification of areas suitable for

8

Hereinafter, “ICFRE”.

9

Hereinafter, “MPSM”.

19

mining, areas requiring strict ecological protection and zones

where biodiversity values necessitated conservation priority.

34. Vide the judgment and order dated 13

th November

2025 in the present proceedings to which two of us (Gavai, CJI

and K. Vinod Chandran, J.) were a party , this Court has

directed the Wildlife Sanctuary to be established insofar as the

compartments which were identified as conservation areas/no

mining zones. However, this Court explicitly excluded the

compartments wherein the MPSM found that sustainable

mining could be permitted.

35. It is not in dispute that the Aravali Hills and Ranges

also exhibit similar ecological fragility, and it is also an area

comprising of significant biodiversity. Not only that it acts as

a green barrier thereby preventing desertification in the Indo-

Gangetic plains, Haryana and western Uttar Pradesh.

36. No doubt that as stated by the learned ASG, the

MoEF&CC had decided to develop a green corridor/green wall.

However, the note submitted by the learned ASG would itself

reveal that the Aravali mountain range faces “escalating

degradation pressures”. The note further states that

deforestation, unsustainable grazing, illegal and excessive

20

mining, and urban encroachment have contributed to

widespread ecosystem damage. It further states that forest

cover has declined significantly in the last two decades, desert

sands are moving eastwards, and aquifers have been depleted

or damaged by mining activities. It further states that these

cumulative impacts undermine not only biodiversity but also

water security and climate resilience. It has further been

stated that all these affect the livelihoods of communities

dependent on the landscape's resources.

37. Taking all these aspects into consideration, we are of

the considered view that while we propose to accept the report

of the Committee constituted by the MoEF&CC pursuant to

the orders passed by this Court, it would also be in the best

interest of the ecology and environment that a similar study

as was conducted for Saranda and Chaibasa, Singhbhum

District, Jharkhand by ICFRE is also conducted for Aravali

Hills and Ranges. No doubt that the Committee has taken care

by recommending prohibition of mining in core/inviolate areas

except in cases of critical, strategic and atomic minerals.

However, we find that it would be appropriate that such a

21

study be carried out taking into consideration the geological

importance of the Aravali mountain ranges.

38. It will be relevant to refer to paragraphs 7.3 and 7.4 of

the report of the Committee, which read thus:

“7.3 Regulation of Mining in Aravali Hills and

Ranges

7.3.1 The Committee recommends that to ensure

sustainable mining in the Aravalli Hills and ranges,

no new mining lease , except in case of critical,

strategic and atomic minerals (Atomic minerals

notified in part B and Critical and Strategic minerals

notified in Part D of the First Schedule of the MMDR

Act) and minerals listed in the Seventh Schedule of

the MMDR Act 1957 may be granted in Aravalli Hills

and Ranges as marked in the SOI Toposheets as per

the procedure described above

7.3.2 Regulation of operation of existing mines in

Aruvalli Hills and Ranges : The Committee

recommends that in case of ongoing mining leases

falling within in the area of Aravalli Hills and Ranges

as defined above, as well as for the renewal of such

mining leases, a team of experts comprising officers

of State Forest Department, Mining and Geology

Department, Local Administration and State

Pollution Control Board (SPCB) and such domain

experts as may be required, shall visit the concerned

mine to take stock of the compliance of EC/CTO

conditions and environmental safeguards followed by

the Mines for conservation of Aravalli Hills/Ranges

and prescribe necessary environmental safeguards

as deemed appropriate. The additional

environmental safeguard, as proposed by the

Committee, may be made a part of CTO conditions

and compliance thereof may be monitored by the

concerned SPCB.

22

7.4 Prohibition of Mining in Core/Inviolate Areas

7.4.1 Core/Inviolate areas may be designated in the

Aravalli Hills and Ranges for prohibiting mining in

them. For this purpose, following areas may be

designated as core/inviolate areas for the purpose of

mining:

i. Protected Areas, including tiger reserves

and all identified tiger corridors.

ii. Area covered under Draft or Final Eco

Sensitive Zone (ESZ)/Eco Sensitive Area

(ESA) notified under Section 3(2)(v) of the

Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and

Section 5(1) of the Environment

(Protection) Rules, 1986

iii. For ESZs around Protected Areas, for

which proposals have been submitted by

the State Governments but are yet to be

notified as Draft/Final Notification by the

MoEFCC and for those, in which the

proposals are yet to be submitted by the

State Governments, the default ESZ shall

be regulated strictly as per the orders of

Hon'ble Supreme Court issued from time

to time in the matter of Writ Petition(s)

(Civil) No(s). 202/1995 Τ.Ν. Godavarman

Thirumulpad versus Union of India &

Ors.;

iv. No mining to be allowed within 1.0 km

of the boundary of Protected Area, even if

the boundary of ESZ is less than 1.0 km

from the boundary of the Protected Area.

v. Areas where plantations have been

raised with funds from CAMPA,

Government sources or under

international cooperation

vi. 500 m from the boundary of Ramsar

sites and Wetlands under Wetland

(Conservation & Management) Rules,

2017.”

23

39. We also appreciate the recommendations made by the

Committee for preventing illegal mining and permitting only

sustainable mining in the Aravali Hills and Ranges.

40. However, taking all aspects of the matter into

consideration, especially the fact that the Aravali Hills and

Ranges harbour rich biodiversity, with twenty-two wildlife

sanctuaries, four tiger reserves, the Keoladeo National Park,

along with wetlands like Sultanpur, Sambhar, Siliserh, and

Asola Bhati, and aquifers that recharge river systems

including the ones at Chambal, Sabarmati, Luni, Mahi, and

Banas, it is more than appropriate that before permitting

further sustainable mining activities, the same are preceded

by preparation of an MPSM.

41. In this regard, Ms. Bhati, learned ASG, expressed an

apprehension that insofar as Saranda was concerned, it dealt

with a much smaller area. She further submitted that carrying

out an MPSM for such a huge area covered by the Aravali Hills

and Ranges, would take a much longer time and would be a

herculean task.

42. We are of the considered view that it may not be in the

interest of ecology and environment if further mining activities

24

are permitted to be carried out without a body of experts, such

as ICFRE, examining the issue of protection of the

conservation areas. The MPSM will provide adequate data on

the basis of geo-referenced ecological assessment and identify

the areas which have wildlife and other high eco-sensitive

areas, which are required to be conserved. The MPSM will also

provide data as to how sustainable mining is to be conducted.

43. The MPSM, for Saranda, had put up a specific question

as to whether diversion of one of the best natural virgin forest

areas in the country for a lease of 12 to 13 years for mining

activities, is really worthy and justified? It is not in dispute

that the Aravali Hills and Ranges are one of the oldest

geological features of planet Earth. The MPSM for Saranda has

emphasized the need for identification of critical wildlife

habitats, corridors linking critical wildlife habitats, rich forests

and such other important forest areas in Saranda Forest

which need to be protected and conserved for posterity and are

considered as ecologically important and may be considered

as inviolate for iron ore mining. Such areas have been notified

as Conservation Reserve/Corridors or Ecologically Sensitive

25

Areas in accordance with the provisions of the Wild Life

(Protection) Act, 1972 and the Environment (Protection) 1986.

44. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that if such

an MPSM is carried out for the Aravali Hills and Ranges, it can

also identify the areas where sustainable mining activities

could be permitted.

45. We therefore find that it will be appropriate to prepare

a Management Plan, in the nature of MPSM for Sarandha, for

the Aravali Hills and Ranges.

46. The MoEF&CC, if necessary, can also consider

preparing MPSM for each of the districts in the Aravali Hills

and Ranges. However, while doing that, it should be ensured

that the continuity and integrity of the Aravali Hills and

Ranges is maintained.

47. Further, insofar as a ban on mining is concerned,

we do not propose to impose any such ban on the present legal

mining activities that are already being undertaken in the

Aravali Hills and Ranges.

48. This Court had on an earlier occasion noticed the ill

consequences of imposing a complete ban on mining activities

in the case of State of Bihar and Others v. Pawan Kumar

26

and Others,

10 to which one of us (Gavai, J., as he then was)

was a party. A complete ban on mining could, as was seen in

the said case, lead to illegal mining activities being carried out,

creation of land/mining mafias and criminalisation.

49. We, however, clarify that mining activities already

being undertaken in the Aravali Hills and Ranges would be

carried out strictly in accordance with paragraph 8 of the

recommendations of the Committee’s Report.

50. In the result, we pass the following order:

(i) We accept the recommendations made by the Committee

with regard to the definition of Aravali Hills and Ranges

given by MoEF&CC;

(ii) We further accept the recommendations with regard to

the prohibition of mining in core/inviolate areas with

exception as carved out in paragraph 7.3.1 of the

Committee’s Report;

(iii) We also accept the recommendations for sustainable

mining in Aravali Hills and Ranges and the steps to be

taken for preventing illegal mining in Aravali Hills and

Ranges;

10

(2022) 2 SCC 348

27

(iv) We, however, direct the MoEF&CC to prepare a MPSM

through ICFRE for the entire Aravalis, i.e., understood as

the continuous geological ridge extending from Gujarat

to Delhi on the lines of the MPSM for Saranda and the

MPSM must:

a. Identify permissible areas for mining, ecologically

sensitive, conservation-critical and restoration-

priority areas within the Aravali landscape where

mining shall be strictly prohibited or permitted only

under exceptional and scientifically justified

circumstances;

b. Incorporate a thorough analysis of cumulative

environmental impacts and the ecological carrying

capacity of the region; and

c. Include detailed post-mining restoration and

rehabilitation measures.

(v) We further direct that till the MPSM is finalised by the

MoEF&CC through ICFRE , no new mining leases should

be granted;

(vi) We further direct that upon the MPSM being finalised by

MoEF&CC in consultation with the ICFRE, mining would

28

be permitted as per the MPSM only in those areas

wherein sustainable mining could be permitted; and

(vii) In the meantime, the mining activities in the mines which

are already in operation would be continued in strict

compliance with the recommendations made by the

Committee in paragraph 8 of its Report.

51. Since one of us (B.R. Gavai, CJI) is sitting in the

proceedings in W.P.(C) No.202/1995 for the last time, we feel

that it is our duty to place on record our deep appreciation for

Mr. K. Parameshwar, learned Amicus Curiae, who, for the last

three years has laboriously assisted this Court in passing

various judgments and orders for the protection and

conservation of environment, wildlife and ecology. We must

also place on record our deep appreciation for

Mr. M.V. Mukunda, Ms. Kanti, Ms. Raji Gururaj and

Mr. Shreenivas Patil, learned counsel, whose contribution in

assisting Mr. K. Parameshwar, learned Amicus Curiae is very

valuable. We must also place on record our appreciation for

Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Additional Solicitor General of

India, who has been representing the MoEF&CC in this matter

for a pro-active role and assisting this Court to find out the

29

solutions for protection and conservation of environment,

wildlife and ecology. We also place on record our appreciation

for Mr. Balbir Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

State of Haryana and Mr. K.M. Nataraj, learned Additional

Solicitor General of India appearing for the State of Rajasthan

in the present matter.

…………….................CJI

(B.R. GAVAI)

…................................J

(K. VINOD CHANDRAN )

…................................J

(N.V. ANJARIA)

NEW DELHI;

NOVEMBER 20, 2025.