Abstract
The Aravalli Range is one of the oldest mountain chains in the world. It acts as a “green shield” for Northern India, stopping the Thar Desert from spreading and providing water to millions of people. For a very long time, there was no official legal rule to define what an “Aravalli Hill” actually was. This confusion allowed mining companies and builders to destroy the land because they could claim the land wasn’t a “hill.” In November 2025, the Supreme Court of India accepted a new definition from the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC). This definition says a hill must be at least 100 meters high. While this makes the law clearer, it might leave 90% of the mountains unprotected. This article analyzes why this “100-meter rule” is risky for both the law and the environment.
I. Introduction: The Story of the Aravallis
The Aravalli Range is not just a row of mountains; it is a living system that stretches nearly 700 kilometers through Gujarat, Rajasthan, Haryana, and Delhi. It is often called the “Green Wall” of India. Its job is to block hot winds and sand from the Thar Desert. Without these hills, cities like Delhi and Jaipur would likely become part of the desert.
For over 40 years, the Aravallis have been in danger. Because these hills contain valuable minerals like marble and limestone, many people want to dig them up for profit. Historically, the Aravallis suffered from “legal invisibility.” This means that if a hill was not written down in an old government book as a “hill,” it was treated as “waste land.” State governments would then give this land to mining companies.
Between 1990 and 2020, dozens of hills simply disappeared because of mining. The Supreme Court tried to stop this, but they faced a big problem: nobody could agree on where a “hill” started and where the “flat land” ended. The 2025 definition was the government’s attempt to end this confusion with a simple mathematical rule.
II. Research Methodology:
This article is based on a “doctrinal and analytical” study. In simple terms, this means I have carefully read and compared the most important official documents. These include:
The Supreme Court Order: The specific judgment from November 20, 2025, regarding the Aravallis.
Government Reports: Files from the MoEFCC Expert Committee and the Forest Survey of India.
The Indian Constitution: The basic laws of India that tell us we must protect nature.
Water Data: Reports showing how much water is left underground in North India.
By looking at all these pieces of information, this article checks if the 100-meter rule is a good way to save the environment or if it is just a way to help the mining industry.
III. The New Rule: The 100-Meter Definition
The MoEFCC wanted a rule that was easy to measure. They didn’t want any more arguments in court about what a hill is. On November 20, 2025, the Supreme Court agreed to these new rules:
The Height Rule: A landform is only an “Aravalli Hill” if it is 100 meters or taller than the land around it.
The Range Rule: If you have two or more of these 100-meter hills within 500 meters of each other, they are called an “Aravalli Range.”
The Measurement Rule: To measure the height, experts look at the lowest line on a map that goes all the way around the hill. This is called a “contour line.” Everything inside that line is protected.
The Reason for the Rule: The government says this removes “human mistakes.” By using satellite maps, they can make a permanent map of all hills. They argue this will stop illegal work and allow “sustainable mining” in areas that are shorter than 100 meters.
IV. Legal Framework:
We need to see if this new rule follows the big ideas of Indian law. There are three main legal concepts to consider:
1. The Precautionary Principle (Being Careful)
This is a famous rule in India. It says that if something might cause permanent damage to nature, the government must be extra careful. They shouldn’t wait for “perfect proof” before acting. By picking the number “100 meters,” the government has made a random choice. Why not 40 meters or 60 meters? A 90-meter ridge is still very important for stopping desert sand. By ignoring these “shorter” hills, the government is not being careful enough.
2. The Public Trust Doctrine (The Guardian Rule)
The law says the government is not the “owner” of the mountains. Instead, the government is a “guardian” or a “trustee.” The mountains belong to the public and future generations. Reports show that 90% of the hills in Rajasthan are shorter than 100 meters. If the government stops protecting these hills, they are failing in their duty as a guardian. It is like a security guard deciding to only protect the front door of a house while leaving the windows open for thieves.
3. Fundamental Rights (Article 21)
The Constitution of India says every person has a “Right to Life.” The courts have said this includes the Right to Clean Air and Water. If mining the “short” hills makes the air dusty or the water dry up, then the government is taking away the people’s Right to Life. Also, Article 48A says the State must protect forests and wildlife. A rule that allows more mining seems to go against this duty.
V. Environmental Impact: What Will Happen?
Nature does not care about a ruler or a 100-meter mark. The mountains work as a single team.
1. The Water Crisis
The Aravallis are like a giant sponge. The rocks are very old and have many cracks. When it rains, the water travels through these cracks and fills up the underground wells (aquifers) that people in Delhi, Gurugram, and Alwar use for drinking and farming.
The Risk: Mining in areas that are “non-hills” (under 100 meters) means digging deep into the ground and using explosives. This breaks the “veins” that carry water underground.
The Result: Many areas in North India are already running out of water. If we lose the recharge from the smaller hills, the water table will fall even faster. Eventually, the wells will go completely dry.
2. Stopping the Desert (The Green Wall)
The Aravallis are a physical wall. They stop the sand from the Thar Desert from blowing into our farms and cities.
The Fallacy (The Logical Error): A 50-meter-high ridge blocks sand just as well as a 120-meter-high hill.
The Result: If we mine the “short” hills, we are creating “holes” in the wall. Through these holes, sand and hot winds will enter. This will lead to more dust storms and make the air in Delhi and Haryana much dirtier.
VI. Impact on Local People
While lawyers argue about heights, the people living near the hills face real problems.
Losing Grazing Land: Many villagers use the small hills to feed their goats and cows. If these hills are turned into mines, the villagers lose their way of making a living.
Health Problems: Mining creates a lot of dust. People living nearby breathe this dust every day. This leads to a deadly lung disease called silicosis.
Losing Farms: When the water underground disappears because of mining, farmers cannot grow crops anymore. They are forced to leave their homes and move to cities to find work.
VII. Critical Analysis:
In my opinion, the government’s 100-meter rule is an example of “Scientific Reductionism.” This is a fancy way of saying they are trying to fix a big, complicated problem with a very small, simple tool.
Nature is a web. A 110-meter hill depends on the smaller hills around it to stay healthy. You cannot destroy the “small” parts of an ecosystem and expect the “big” parts to survive. The Supreme Court was right to want a clear definition, but a height-based rule is not the best way to do it. It seems like a “red carpet” for mining companies to get what they want.
The Court did say there is a moratorium (a total stop) on new mining for now. This is good news. But in the long run, we need a landscape approach. This means we should protect the whole area—the tall hills, the short ridges, and the valleys—as one single protected zone.
VIII. Conclusion
The Aravalli Range is a 2-billion-year-old gift. The fight over its definition is a fight between money and nature. While the 100-meter rule makes things easy for government officers, it is very dangerous for our environment.
The safety of our water and our air depends on these hills. If we treat them only as a source of stones for buildings, we will lose our protection against the desert. The law must always choose to protect nature first. Once a mountain is turned into dust, no legal rule can ever bring it back. We must protect the Aravallis because they are the “ecological shield” that keeps us alive.
IX. References and Sources
Legal Cases:
In Re: Issue Relating to Definition of Aravali Hills and Ranges, Supreme Court of India, Order dated Nov 20, 2025.
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (2004) 12 S.C.C. 118.
T.N. GodavarmanThirumulpad v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 202/1995.
M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, (1997) 1 S.C.C. 388.
Government Reports:
MoEFCC, Report on Uniform Definition of Aravallis, Oct 2025.
Press Information Bureau (PIB), “Protecting the Aravalli Ecology,” Dec 2025.
Forest Survey of India (FSI), Special Report on Aravalli Hills, 2024.
Academic & News Sources:
“Why the 100-meter Rule is Dangerous,” Down To Earth, Nov 2025.
“Aravalli Legal Analysis,” Live Law, Dec 2025.
Gupta, S., Water and the Aravalli Range, Environmental Journal (2024).
Author Name- Vishal Vashishtha, 5th year of B.A. LL.B. program at Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar University, Agra.
