Environmentalists write to Supreme Court committee about ‘inadequate’ public consultation on Aravallis
Environmentalists and conservationists wrote to the Supreme Court-constituted committee examining Aravalli protection, flagging that the public consultation process has been inadequate ahead of the committee's August 31 deadline
The letter urged the committee to seek more time from the Supreme Court, broaden the scope of consultation, involve independent experts, and engage rural and adivasi communities living in and around the Aravalli range
It also asked that knowledgeable local citizens be included in field visits conducted by the committee
The committee was constituted through a Supreme Court order to examine the extent, definition, and protection framework for the Aravalli hills, following earlier suo motu proceedings on the issue
Concerns were separately raised about discrepancies between different official estimates of the number of districts falling within the Aravalli range
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Forest-Status Protection for the Aravallis
The ongoing Supreme Court proceedings on the Aravallis trace back to the long-running M.C. Mehta v. Union of India litigation on illegal mining and ecological degradation in the range. The Court has held that large parts of the Aravalli hills qualify as "forest" for the purposes of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, regardless of formal notification, restricting non-forest activity such as mining and construction.
Key Details
- The Supreme Court's forest-status protection for the Aravallis draws on the broader "dictionary meaning" test for forests laid down in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (1996), under which any area meeting the dictionary definition of a forest is treated as a "deemed forest" and protected under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, irrespective of ownership or official forest records
- The Aravallis in Haryana are additionally protected through notifications issued under the Punjab Land Preservation Act (PLPA), 1900, which prohibits non-forest activity on notified hill land in Punjab and Haryana; the Supreme Court has upheld such PLPA notifications as a valid basis for restricting mining and construction
- A separate suo motu case was initiated by the Supreme Court in December 2025 specifically to resolve the lack of a uniform, scientific definition of the "Aravalli hills and ranges" across government records
- A committee was subsequently constituted by a Supreme Court order (2026) to examine this definitional question and recommend a protection and mining-assessment framework, with an August 31 deadline for submitting its report
The committee under scrutiny in this letter is a direct outcome of the Supreme Court's continuing supervisory role over Aravalli protection under the M.C. Mehta and Godavarman lines of forest jurisprudence; environmentalists argue that a rushed or narrow consultation process by this committee risks producing recommendations that do not hold up to the same judicial and scientific rigour.
Natural Conservation Zone (NCZ) under the NCR Regional Plan
The National Capital Region (NCR) Regional Plan designates the Aravalli hill tracts within the NCR (spanning Delhi, Haryana, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh districts) as a Natural Conservation Zone, a land-use category under which real estate development and construction are barred to preserve ecologically sensitive areas.
Key Details
- The NCZ classification was carried forward from the Regional Plan 2021 into the more recent NCR Plan 2041, after conservationists opposed earlier proposals to dilute the NCZ's protective scope
- Natural features covered under the NCZ include the Aravalli ridge extension across Rajasthan, Haryana and Delhi, forest areas, rivers and their floodplains (Yamuna, Ganga, Sahibi and tributaries), wildlife sanctuaries, and major water bodies
- The NCR Planning Board functions under the National Capital Region Planning Board Act, 1985, and its regional plans are meant to guide state-level town planning in the participating states and Union Territory
- Land-use classification under the Regional Plan operates independently of, but alongside, forest-law protections such as those recognised in the M.C. Mehta proceedings
The Supreme Court committee's mandate to examine Aravalli protection intersects with this existing NCZ land-use framework; environmentalists' demand for broader consultation reflects concern that the committee's recommendations could reshape which areas continue to receive NCZ-equivalent protection.
Locus of Local and Tribal Communities in Environmental Decision-Making
Environmentalists' demand for inclusion of rural and adivasi (tribal) community representatives in the Aravalli committee's consultations reflects a broader principle in Indian environmental governance that decisions affecting forest-dependent and hill communities should involve meaningful public participation, not merely technical assessment by government-linked experts.
Key Details
- Statutory public consultation requirements exist in comparable contexts, such as the public hearing process mandated under the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006 for Category A and applicable Category B projects
- The Forest Rights Act, 2006 separately requires Gram Sabha consent for diversion of forest land in Scheduled Areas and for recognising individual and community forest rights, reflecting a similar participatory principle in forest-related decision-making
- Committees constituted directly by the Supreme Court (as opposed to executive government committees) are not automatically bound by EIA-style statutory public hearing procedures, which is part of why their consultation process is being separately contested in this instance
- Similar concerns about "conflict of interest" have been raised where a committee's Chairperson or Member Secretary is drawn from the same ministry whose past policy positions are under examination
The letter's core demand — for independent experts and community representation, rather than officials linked to the administrative ministry — echoes the participatory principles found in the EIA and Forest Rights Act frameworks, even though the Supreme Court committee itself is not directly bound by either statute.
- Supreme Court suo motu proceedings on Aravalli hills definition initiated: December 2025
- Committee to examine Aravalli protection constituted by Supreme Court order: 2026
- Deadline for the committee's report: August 31
- Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 "dictionary meaning" forest test: laid down in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (1996)
- Legislation historically used to restrict non-forest activity on Aravalli hill land in Haryana/Punjab: Punjab Land Preservation Act (PLPA), 1900
- NCR Regional Plan land-use category protecting the Aravallis from construction: Natural Conservation Zone (NCZ), retained in NCR Plan 2041
- States/UT covered by the Aravalli range and the NCR framework: Rajasthan, Haryana, Delhi, Gujarat (Aravalli range); Rajasthan, Haryana, Delhi, Uttar Pradesh (NCR)