Demonstrations have broken out 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 stretching across the states of Rajasthan, Haryana, Gujarat, and Delhi.
According to the fresh parameters, endorsed by the court based on central government suggestions, an Aravalli hill is any geographical feature with a minimum elevation of 100 metres (328 ft) above the adjacent land. Two or more such hills within 500 metres of each other, combined with the land between them, are considered an Aravalli range.
Conservationists contend that classifying Aravalli hills by height potentially excludes many shorter, vegetation-clad but ecologically critical hills vulnerable to quarrying and development.
The federal government, on the other hand, maintains that the revised definition is meant to strengthen regulation and bring uniformity and not dilute safeguards.
Why are People Protesting?
This weekend, calm demonstrations were held in cities such as Gurugram and Udaipur, organized by community members, farmers, green activists, and, at times, lawyers and political groups.
A founder member of a prominent conservation collective remarked that the new definition risks undermining the essential function of the Aravalli range in "preventing desertification, replenishing aquifers and safeguarding local economies" in the northwestern region.
The shorter, vegetated hills play a vital role in preventing desertification, boosting water tables and sustaining communities as per experts.
"This mountain system must not be categorized solely by elevation, but by its environmental, physical and weather-related role," said an environmental activist associated with the movement to preserve the Aravallis.
He pointed out that, globally, mountains and hill systems are identified by the functions they perform, not by random height benchmarks.
"Any landform that is geologically part of the Aravalli system and serves a vital purpose in the ecosystem or combating desertification must be acknowledged as a component of the system, regardless of its height."
Protesters are calling for that the government delineate Aravalli areas using research-based parameters, including topography, biodiversity, wildlife connectivity and climate resilience.
One activist warned that the court's new definition might promote extractive industries, development and business projects, heightening the threat of ecological damage.
Political opponents have ramped up their censure, cautioning that the new definition could cause serious ecological damage.
One political leader declared that safeguarding the Aravallis is "fundamentally linked to Delhi's survival." Another leader called the range the state's "lifeline," adding that without it, "a vast region 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 official release, it asserted the new definition is intended to strengthen regulation and create standardization, noting that a single, objective definition was needed to regulate mining uniformly across states.
It added that the new definition encompasses the whole mountainous region – including slopes, associated landforms, and intervening areas – clearly safeguarding hill clusters and their connections.
The federal environment ministry clarified it is wrong to assume that mining will be permitted on all landforms under 100 metres.
The government states areas within the Aravalli hills or ranges are not eligible for new mining leases, while existing ones can continue if they adhere to environmentally sound practices.
It added that mining remains prohibited in core "inviolate" areas – reserved woodlands, eco-sensitive zones, and wetlands – aside from certain critical, strategic, and atomic minerals allowed by law.
The minister responsible for ecology said only about 2% of the 147,000 sqkm Aravalli range could potentially be mined, and only after detailed studies and official approval.
Nevertheless, many of the demonstrating organizations say that demonstrations will continue and that they are considering legal options to contest the court's new definition.
