December 29, 2025 05:38 PM IST First published on: Dec 29, 2025 at 05:38 PM ISTOn December 29, the CJI-led bench of the Supreme Court ordered the suspension of its November 2025 judgment regarding the definition of the Aravalli hills, as further clarification was needed before the report or the Court’s directions could be implemented. The Court acknowledged that its earlier directions may have created a “structural paradox,” particularly concerning the relationship between legal taxonomy and ecological protection.Misplaced ecological considerationsThe controversy emerges from an attempt to resolve longstanding definitional inconsistencies of the Aravallis across Delhi, Haryana, Rajasthan, and Gujarat. The Court-approved definition characterised “Aravalli Hills” as landforms with a minimum elevation of 100 metres from local relief, with “Aravalli Ranges” constituted by two or more such hills within 500 metres of each other. While this formulation provided administrative clarity, it simultaneously created what may be termed the problem of negative definition: By delineating what falls within protection, it necessarily delineates what falls outside it.AdvertisementThe numerical implications present a concerning trend. The Forest Survey of India’s mapping exercise identified 12,081 potential geological formations, of which only 1,048 (approximately 8.7 per cent) satisfy the 100-metre elevation threshold. However, this binary classification obscures more complex regulatory issues. The definition adopted in November 2025 mirrors criteria that Rajasthan has applied since 2006, a period during which, according to a 2018 Central Empowered Committee report, 31 of 128 Aravalli hills in that state disappeared due to illegal quarrying. This historical precedent raises questions about whether uniformity achieved through a tested but flawed standard represents genuine progress in environmental protection. More fundamentally, the definition’s genealogy reveals a preference for administrative convenience over ecological comprehensiveness. The FSI had proposed an alternative framework based on slope gradients (above 3 degrees) with 100-metre buffer zones, a criterion the Supreme Court’s own technical committee endorsed in 2010. The rejection of this approach in favour of elevation-based demarcation suggests prioritisation of verifiable boundaries over functional ecosystem protection.Environmental protection often requires regulating buffer zones, transitional areas, and ecological corridors (such as ESZs, wildlife corridors, etc.) that may not be primary habitats but are crucial for ecosystem health. The Aravalli range functions as an interconnected hydrological and ecological system. Its role as a barrier against desertification, its part in groundwater recharge, and its provision of biodiversity corridors do not align simply with elevation measurements.The issue of the 500-metre gaps between hills poses another challenge, as recognised by the Court during the hearing. If these gaps are excluded from the definition, they can be used for regulated mining. However, mining in such corridors might weaken the overall structure and ecological connectivity of the range. This illustrates a broader issue in environmental regulation: The inadequacy of spatial fragmentation in managing systemic ecological functions.AdvertisementAlso Read | Aravallis need the Supreme Court’s shieldAdhering to legal principlesFrom a constitutional perspective, this matter involves the application of the precautionary principle, as outlined in Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum vs. Union of India (1996). The principle requires that when there are threats of serious or irreversible harm, the absence of complete scientific certainty should not delay measures to prevent environmental damage. The November judgment’s emphasis on precise scientific demarcation, while procedurally correct, placed the precautionary principle below the certainty principle. The suspension of that order has prevented such a transition.Barely weeks earlier, a three-judge bench recalled its May judgment in Vanashakti vs. Union of India, which had prohibited ex post facto environmental clearances. That recall was justified on the grounds that the earlier bench had rendered its decision per incuriam by overlooking precedents. The Aravalli stay, while procedurally different, shares a common characteristic: Judicial acknowledgment that environmental determinations require refinement when initial approaches prove inadequate. It further shows concerns over the substantive ecological implications of the adopted definition itself. This represents judicial restraint of a more sophisticated order, wherein the Court revisited its conclusions not on grounds of procedural error or conflicting case law, but on grounds of potential substantive inadequacy in translating ecological reality into legal standards.most readBalancing considerationsThe proposed committee, suggested by the Court, must address several such critical issues, in addition to the terms of reference. First, whether areas excluded from the definition should be subject to a graduated protection regime rather than complete deregulation. Second, whether elevation-based criteria adequately reflect the geological and ecological characteristics that require protection. Third, whether a functional approach to protection, based on ecosystem services and ecological connectivity, would better serve the statute’s objectives than morphological criteria alone.This matter also highlights a fundamental challenge in Indian environmental governance of translating ecological realities into justiciable legal standards. Courts require bright-line rules for consistent application; ecosystems require flexible, adaptive management. The Aravalli controversy suggests that excessive juridification of environmental protection, while providing legal certainty, may undermine substantive environmental outcomes.The writer is a lawyer and researcher based in New Delhi