SC review signals a long-overdue rethink on protecting the Aravallis

The Supreme Court’s decision to stay its November 20 verdict upholding the definition given by an expert committee (of the government) for the Aravalli range offers opportunities for a much-needed corrective to a deeply flawed approach to environmental protection in India. A three-judge vacation Bench of the court, headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, has chosen to take suo motu cognisance of the issue following sharp protests from environmental and civil-society groups. The review reflects an acknowledgement that legal taxonomy may not necessarily be compatible with environmental protection, which has emerged as a critical element of green policy worldwide. 

In November, the Supreme Court had accepted the government’s recommendation of a uniform definition for the Aravallis as hills that were 100 metres or more above local ground and hill clusters, and slopes located within 500 metres from each other. This, in spite of the fact that the Forest Survey of India data had earlier indicated that such a definition would place over 90 per cent of the terrain historically recognised as the Aravallis, which stretches from Gujarat to Delhi, outside the purview of legal protection and therefore open to mining and quarrying. In adopting this definition, the Supreme Court contradicted its earlier views. The definition it mooted corresponded to the criteria applied by the Rajasthan government, which the Supreme Court had rejected in 2010. Instead, the court had directed the Forest Survey of India to carry out satellite imaging of the entire range, not just those above the 100 metre cutoff, and detect illegal mining. The survey revealed that 31 of the 128 Aravalli hills in the state had disappeared as a result of mining and quarrying. A court-directed Central Empowered Committee (CEC) had also concluded that given conventional and local wisdom, employing only slope and elevation criteria to define the Aravallis would lead to “inclusion errors” since not all Aravalli terrain in the 34 districts over which it spreads is hilly.  

Perhaps the apex court should have gone further in its review. Following its orders, the government has issued a complete ban on all new mining licences across the entire Aravalli range. But given the visible environmental depredations already inflicted here, a ban on all mining and quarrying would have been better. The Bench proposes to constitute a high-powered committee to analyse whether “sustainable mining” in the newly demarcated Aravalli areas would result in adverse ecological consequences. The Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education has been asked to identify sensitive areas where mining is strictly prohibited and those zones where it can be undertaken under “scientifically justified” circumstances. The intention may be to balance the concerns of ecologists with those of mining companies, but evidence thus far does not augur well for such a plan. Despite serial bans, the Aravallis have been degraded by unregulated and proliferating mining for decades. The deleterious impact of this sustained activity has been the rapid conversion of the cities in the north Indian plains into dust bowls, which add to year-round pollution, creeping desertification, and the marginalisation of local communities, which derived their livelihood from the region. Legally altering the taxonomy or establishing “no go” zones will achieve little in sustainably protecting this ancient ecological resource.