Protests have erupted across the northern part of the country after the Supreme Court issued a new definition for the Aravalli hills – one of the world's oldest mountain ranges spanning the states of Rajasthan, Haryana, Gujarat, and the capital territory.
According to the fresh parameters, accepted by the court following central government recommendations, an Aravalli hill is any geographical feature with a minimum elevation of 100 metres (328 ft) above the adjacent land. A cluster of such hills less than half a kilometre of each other, along with the land between them, are classified as an Aravalli range.
Ecologists assert that defining Aravalli hills by height risks leaving many lower, scrub-covered but vitally important hills unprotected from quarrying and development.
The federal government, however, maintains that the revised definition is intended to strengthen regulation and bring uniformity and not weaken safeguards.
The Roots of the Unrest
Recently, peaceful protests took place in cities such as Gurugram and Udaipur, led by local residents, farmers, environmental activists, and, at times, lawyers and political groups.
An organizing member of a prominent conservation collective remarked that the new definition threatens to compromise the critical role of the Aravalli range in "halting desert expansion, replenishing aquifers and safeguarding local economies" in the northwestern region.
The shorter, vegetated hills perform a crucial function in preventing desertification, boosting water tables and supporting livelihoods as per experts.
"This mountain system should not be defined by height alone, but by its environmental, physical and weather-related function," said an ecology advocate associated with the movement to preserve the Aravallis.
He pointed out that, internationally, mountains and hill systems are classified by the functions they perform, not by random height benchmarks.
"Any feature that is structurally a component of the Aravalli system and serves a vital purpose in the ecosystem or preventing desertification should be recognised as part of the range, irrespective of its height."
Protesters are calling for that the government define Aravalli areas using research-based parameters, including topography, biodiversity, wildlife connectivity and environmental durability.
One activist warned that the court's new definition might promote extractive industries, development and business projects, heightening the risk of environmental harm.
Political opponents have stepped up criticism, cautioning that the new definition might lead to serious ecological damage.
One political leader said that safeguarding the Aravallis is "fundamentally linked to Delhi's survival." Another leader called the range the state's "life-support system," stating that without it, "the entire area up to Delhi would have become a desert."
What Does the Government Say?
India's central government has attempted to minimize these apprehensions.
In a recent communication, it asserted the new definition is intended to strengthen regulation and create standardization, noting that a clear, unambiguous definition was needed to regulate mining uniformly across states.
It added that the new definition covers the entire hill system – including slopes, related features, and connecting zones – explicitly protecting hill clusters and their connections.
The federal environment ministry clarified it is incorrect to assume that mining will be permitted on all landforms under 100 metres.
The government says areas inside the Aravalli hills or ranges are excluded from new mining leases, while existing ones can continue if they adhere to sustainable mining norms.
It added that mining remains banned in core "protected" areas – protected forests, eco-sensitive zones, and wetlands – except for certain critical, strategic, and atomic minerals allowed by law.
The minister responsible for ecology indicated only about two percent of the 147,000 sqkm Aravalli range might be open to extraction, and only after comprehensive assessments and official approval.
However, several of the demonstrating organizations say that demonstrations will continue and that they are considering legal options to contest the court's new definition.
