By: Express News ServiceNew Delhi | December 28, 2025 05:40 AM IST 3 min readAmid the row over the threat to the Aravallis following the Supreme Court-approved definition that limits legal recognition of the hills to landforms rising 100 metres or more above local relief, the top court Saturday initiated suo motu proceedings on the definition question and fixed it for hearing on December 29.A three-judge bench, presided by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, will hear the matter. The bench will also comprise Justices J K Maheshwari and A G Masih.On November 27, a week after the Supreme Court accepted the recommendations of a Union Environment Ministry panel on the definition of Aravalli Hills limiting it to landforms at an elevation of 100 m or more above local relief, a report in The Indian Express, based on an internal FSI assessment, flagged what the panel did not mention: that by this definition, more than 90% of the Aravalli Hills would be potentially open to mining and construction with severe environmental ramifications, including the quality of air in the National Capital Region.On December 23, another report in The Indian Express stated that on October 14, a day after the Environment Ministry submitted its affidavit proposing the new 100-m definition for Aravallis to the apex court, the Supreme Court’s Central Empowered Committee wrote to the amicus curiae assisting the court in the case that they did not examine or approve the recommendation.Earlier, the Supreme Court, while hearing a matter concerning illegal mining in the Aravalli region, had said that one of the main reasons for such illegal activity was the different definitions of “Aravalli Hills/Ranges”, as adopted by the different states. Consequently, it directed the constitution of a committee comprising the Union Environment Secretary and others to provide a “uniform definition of the Aravalli Hills and Ranges”.The committee recommended that “any landform located in the Aravalli districts, having an elevation of 100 metres or more from the local relief, shall be termed as Aravalli Hills”.Senior Advocate K Parameshwar, who was amicus curiae in the matter, had opposed accepting the definition saying “if…accepted, all the hills below the height of 100 metres would be opened up for mining and as a result the Aravalli Hills and Ranges would lose their continuity and integrity” and “would totally endanger the environment and ecology of the mountains.”Story continues below this adThe Centre, however, said 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” and also “made various recommendations in order to prevent rampant mining and permit only sustainable mining.” © The Indian Express Pvt LtdTags:Aravallis