Supreme Court calls for science-backed, public-inclusive process to define Aravallis

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday directed that the expert committee to be formed for defining the Aravalli hills and ranges must consult domain experts and all stakeholders, including the public at large, to ensure that their views are heard.

A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi, however, made it clear that the committee cannot have an unwieldy composition.

“We cannot have a composition of 30 or 40 people, as it will become unmanageable,” the bench observed.

Senior advocate K. Parameshwar, amicus curiae in the matter, pointed out that one major flaw in the previous exercise was that the public had not been consulted.

He suggested that the court direct the committee to devise a proper mechanism to invite suggestions from all stakeholders.

The Chief Justice agreed, noting that the committee must hear everyone. “There will be different stakeholders, and sometimes very good suggestions come from the common man,” the CJI observed.

The bench said the core committee should ideally have 5–7 members with domain expertise and could associate with other specialists, such as forest experts and geographers, for limited roles as required.

Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the Centre, submitted that common names suggested by the Central Empowered Committee and the amicus could be finalised for the panel.

The court had earlier asked the Environment Ministry and other stakeholders to suggest names of domain experts for the panel, which will define the Aravallis — the world’s oldest mountain system.

On December 29, 2025, the apex court had stayed its November 20, 2025 order that had accepted a uniform definition of the Aravallis after taking note of widespread concerns over the new definition.

It had also halted all mining activities in the region. The court had highlighted the need to resolve “critical ambiguities”, including whether the criteria of 100-metre elevation and 500-metre gap between hills would leave a significant portion of the range without environmental protection.