Have your say on Aravallis: Supreme Court panel opens 21-day window for feedback
A Supreme Court-constituted high-powered committee on the Aravalli hills opened a 21-day window for public suggestions and representations on defining and delineating the Aravalli hill range
The committee, headed by the Director General of the Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education (ICFRE), was tasked with independently reviewing the Union government's report on the definition of the Aravallis
Submissions can be made via email or an official online form, and are to be supported by documentary or verifiable evidence where possible
The committee must submit its report to the Supreme Court by a fixed deadline; environmentalists have raised concerns that the short window and online-only format may exclude rural and local community voices
The Aravalli Definition Litigation and the Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900
The core legal dispute is about what legally counts as "Aravalli hill" or "forest" land — a question with major implications for mining and construction bans across Haryana, Rajasthan, Gujarat, and Delhi-NCR. The Supreme Court has long relied on notifications under the Punjab Land Preservation Act (PLPA), 1900, to identify protected Aravalli land, holding that land notified under Sections 4 and 5 of the PLPA for regulating the breaking up of land counts as "forest" even after the notification period lapses, unless cleared under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
Key Details
- The PLPA, 1900 is a pre-independence law originally meant to prevent soil erosion in Punjab (undivided), later applied by courts to protect the Aravalli range in Haryana
- In the M.C. Mehta v. Union of India line of cases, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that no mining is permitted on land notified under PLPA Sections 4 and 5, treating such land as forest for the purposes of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980
- The Supreme Court in 2024 directed the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change to constitute an expert panel to produce a scientific, consistent definition of the Aravalli range across states, since existing state-level definitions vary
- The current committee's 21-day consultation is part of implementing that 2024 direction
The public feedback window is a procedural step in the Supreme Court's ongoing effort — via a court-appointed expert committee rather than legislation — to finally settle what geographic area counts as "Aravalli" and therefore falls under protective mining and construction restrictions.
Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and the Godavarman "Dictionary Meaning" Test
The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 requires prior Central Government approval before forest land is diverted to non-forest use, including mining. What counts as "forest land" was expanded far beyond government-notified forests by the Supreme Court's landmark T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (1996) judgment.
Key Details
- The Godavarman judgment held that "forest land" includes not just the dictionary meaning of forest, but also any area recorded as "forest" in government records, irrespective of ownership or whether it is actually forested
- This broad interpretation is precisely why the Punjab Land Preservation Act notifications over the Aravallis are treated as creating "forest" status, even on land that is not visibly wooded and even after the notification's stated validity period has technically expired
- The Godavarman case remains a continuing mandamus (an ongoing, open Supreme Court proceeding) monitoring forest matters nationwide since 1995, making it one of the longest-running cases in Indian environmental jurisprudence
- Diversion of forest land for mining or construction without Central Government clearance under the 1980 Act is illegal and can trigger restoration and compensatory afforestation obligations
The Aravalli committee's work on defining the range's boundaries directly determines how much land the broad Godavarman-era "forest" definition — and therefore the Forest (Conservation) Act's clearance requirement — will cover going forward.
Public Consultation as an Administrative/Judicial Process
Court-directed public consultation (as opposed to consultation under a statute like the EIA Notification, 2006) is a procedural device increasingly used by the Supreme Court in environmental matters to gather stakeholder input before an expert committee finalises technical recommendations for the Court's consideration.
Key Details
- This differs from statutory public hearings under the EIA Notification, 2006, which apply to project-specific environmental clearances (Category A/B projects) rather than to defining a protected geographic boundary
- Because the Aravalli consultation is court-directed rather than a specific EIA process, there is no minimum statutory hearing period; the 21-day window was set by the committee itself
- Stakeholders identified for input include state governments (Haryana, Rajasthan, Gujarat, Delhi-NCT), environmentalists, mining lease holders, and local communities dependent on the region's biodiversity
This consultation exercise shows how the judiciary, through court-appointed technical committees, can create ad hoc public participation mechanisms distinct from — and sometimes criticised as less inclusive than — the statutory consultation processes built into environmental law.
- Consultation window: 21 days from the notice, via email or an official Google Form
- Committee head: Director General, Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education (ICFRE)
- Governing pre-independence law relied on by courts: Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900 (Sections 4 and 5)
- Key precedent on forest definition: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (1996) — broad "forest" definition, ongoing since 1995
- States affected by Aravalli range definition: Haryana, Rajasthan, Gujarat, Delhi (NCT)
- Central legislation triggered once land is classified as forest: Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980