The Supreme Court on Wednesday sought suggestions of names of eminent environmentalists and forest experts for inclusion in an expert committee proposed to be constituted to examine issues surrounding the definition of the Aravalli Hills and the environmental implications of mining activities in the region.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi made it clear that the proposed expert committee would function under the direct control and supervision of the Supreme Court. The Bench asked the amicus curiae and Senior Advocate K Parameshwar, Additional Solicitors General Aishwarya Bhati and K M Nataraj, along with other counsel appearing in the matter, to suggest suitable names for the committee.
Recording its directions, the Court said that a comprehensive note would be placed on record, setting out the questions that arise for consideration. It added that names of eminent environmentalists and forest experts were being sought so that “an expert body can be formed to look into all aspects and assist the Court,” and clarified that such a committee would work “under the direct control and supervision of this Court.”
The directions came in continuation of the Court’s earlier order dated December 29, 2025, by which it had kept in abeyance its November 20, 2025, judgment approving an elevation-based definition for identifying the Aravalli Hills for the purpose of regulating mining. The Court had then observed that the issue required greater clarity and an independent re-examination of the environmental impact of the recommendations earlier accepted.
In its November 20 decision, the Supreme Court had endorsed an elevation-linked criterion to demarcate the Aravalli Hills, a move that, according to informed opinion, could have excluded more than 90 per cent of the mountain range from mining restrictions. The controversy had its origins in a May 2024 hearing on illegal mining, when the Court noted that different States were following inconsistent definitions of the Aravalli range and called for a uniform framework.
When the matter was taken up on Wednesday, Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran, appearing for farmers from Rajasthan, raised concerns over the grant of mining leases and urged that mining activities be stopped. “Mining leases have been granted; it has to be stopped,” he submitted.
Responding to the concern, CJI Kant said that illegal mining was an ex facie crime and would be dealt with strictly. He cautioned, however, against filing fresh writ petitions that could divert attention from the core issue. “Illegal mining can lead to irreversible steps and has to be stopped… but let no fresh writs be filed. It diverts the focus from the main issue,” the Chief Justice observed.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for an intervenor, argued that mountain ranges could not be subjected to rigid definitions. “It is our position in law that mountains cannot be defined. There are sub-tectonic strata that keep changing. If Aravalli is defined, then it will be the start of a problem,” he submitted, seeking a preliminary hearing on the issue.
Assuring the Court, Additional Solicitor General K M Nataraj submitted that illegal mining would not be permitted. Taking note of the assurance, the Court directed that the interim directions issued on December 29, 2025, would continue to operate and proceeded to seek names for the constitution of the proposed expert committee.