The Aravalli Hills and the Environmental Constitutionalism in India

INTRODUCTION

India’s environmental governance stands at a constitutional crossroad today. The recent judicial adjudication on the Aravalli mountain range clearly discusses the tension between ecological preservation guaranteed by the constitution of India and executive discretion, igniting the debate regarding the limit of state intervention in matters regarding environment preservation. The Aravalli issue can be seen as not just a matter concerning  the fate of an ecological zone but also the integrity of India’s environmental constitutionalism and jurisprudence itself.

The Aravalli Hills and Ranges are among India’s oldest geological formations, stretching from Delhi through Haryana, Rajasthan, and into Gujarat. Historically, they have been recognized across 37 districts by state governments, with their ecological role noted as a natural barrier against northern desertification and a protector of biodiversity and water recharge. The Supreme Court has emphasized that uncontrolled mining here poses a “great threat to the ecology of the nation” in its landmark judgements like M.C Mehta v. Union of India and directed uniform criteria to safeguard them, drawing strength from expansive interpretations of Article 21 of the Constitution and the State’s obligations under Articles 48A and 51A(g). Their conservation is thus vital for ecological stability, cultural heritage, and sustainable development.

Against this constitutional backdrop, the recent attempt by the Union Government and its agencies to redefine the Aravalli hills—by limiting their identification to areas with a minimum forest cover or specific elevation thresholds—raises serious legal and ethical concerns. Such reclassification, as alleged by several environmentalists and others, if allowed to stand in the long run, would exclude the majority of such range from environmental protection guaranteed by several legislations, later creating smooth ways for its exploitation under the pretext of mining for development purpose or other related technical compliance. This executive approach, which was later accepted by the Supreme Court bench, seems to be in direct conflict with the Supreme Court’s long-standing position that environmental protection cannot be reduced to narrow administrative definitions, especially where such definitions undermine the right to life and ecological security of present and future generations.

This paper does not restrict itself to a narrow examination of the redefinition of the Aravalli Hills and its immediate legal implications. But it also adopts a broader analytical framework to examine whether such State actions when resulting in any ecological degradation or climate-related harm may constitute a violation of fundamental rights, especially under Article 21 of the Constitution, thereby justifying judicial intervention?

THE ARAVALLI HILLS: REDEFINITION AND  IMPACT

The Aravalli Range covering around Rajasthan, Haryana, Delhi and Gujarat – has long been recognized as a “green barrier” protecting the Indo-Gangetic plains from the Thar Desert, are among the oldest geological formations on Earth, very much older than the mount Everest and the Himalayas! These hills and ranges are significant as they acts as:

• Acts a natural barrier against desertification in North Western India,

• A groundwater recharge zone, supporting aquifers that sustains agriculture and drinking water supplies

• Biodiversity corridor/habitat for numerous species, and 

• A regulator of local climate and soil stability

  
  

And therefore the conservation of the Aravallis is vital not only for ecological stability but also for sustainable development and environment security in the region.

The United Nations Convention on Combat Desertification (UNCCD) was ratified by India on 17th December 1996. As per Article 5 of the said convention, India being a signatory to the UNCCD is therefore required to strengthen the existing laws, enact new laws as needed, and undertake long term policy measures and action programmes to combat desertification. A brief examination of article 10(2)(c) and 10(4) of the said convention would reveal the need for framing of national action programmes and preventive measures for lands that are not yet, or which are only slightly degraded. In recognition of the ecological importance of the Aravali Ranges, the MoEF&CC has also launched the Aravali Green Wall Project, an initiative aimed at restoring degraded land, preventing desertification, enhancing green cover and improving the ecological health of the Aravalli landscape.

However one continuous legal and regulatory challenge that has been prevailing is the absence of a uniform, nationally accepted definition of what constitutes Aravalli Hills and Ranges. Prior to 2025- different states adopted different criteria to classify and protect Aravalli areas resulting in regulatory fragmentation. For instance in Haryana, there was not any formal definition of Aravalli hills that made mining prohibitions inconsistent. Such inconsistencies allowed mining operators to exploit such regulatory gaps to their advantage and hence prompted the Supreme Court to seek a scientifically robust and uniform definition at the national level.

ROLE OF THE SUPREME COURT AND THE COMMITTEE

Recognising the urgent need to cater to such definitional gaps, Supreme Court in a suo moto matter In Re: Issue Relating to Definition of Aravalli Hills and Ranges arising out of longstanding T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad case directed the Union Government to constitute a committee to frame a definition that can be applied across all concerned states like Delhi, Haryana, Rajasthan and Gujrat. The committee led by Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) and comprising representatives from the Forest Survey of India (FSI), Central Empowered Committee (CEC), Geological Survey of India (GSI) and the forest department of the affected states, consulted and agreed to adopt a uniform criterion somewhat similar to the one historically used in Rajasthan.

THE ACCEPTED DEFINITION

On 29 November 2025, the Supreme Court accepted the committee's recommendations and laid down a nationwide definition. The new definition can be divided into two- Aravalli Hills (vertical) and Aravalli Ranges (horizontal).

1.Aravalli Hills- any landform located in the Aravalli districts having a local elevation of 100 meters or more above the lowest enriching contour shall be classified as Aravalli Hill. It is also to be noted that the said definition includes not just the elevated body itself but also its supporting slopes and associated landforms irrespective of their individual gradients.

2.Aravalli Range- Two or more Aravalli hills lying within 500 metres of each other, measured from the outer boundary of their lowest contour lines, together form an Aravalli Range. In such cases, the entire land area lying between these hills is also treated as part of the Aravalli Range. This includes valleys, slopes, hillocks, and other connected landforms situated between the hills. As a consequence, the new definition ensures that not only the individual hills, but also the land connecting them, is recognised as part of the Aravalli Range, so that the ecological continuity of the region is preserved.

On a plain reading of the new definition, it might seem inclusive of even smaller slopes and associated landforms between two aravalli hills, but the new definition attracted significant opposition and public opposition. For instance,  "The Aravalli range should not be defined by height alone, but by its ecological, geological and climatic role," Vikrant Tongad, an environmental activist associated with the movement to save the Aravallis, told BBC.

SO WHERE IS THE ISSUE? 

Many statistics and reports suggest that as per the new definition claiming only 100 meters hills to be a part of Aravallis would mean that only about 1,050 of the 12,081 hills that form the range would qualify for protection. Nearly 90% of the Aravalli Hills in Rajasthan rise only 30-80 metres.

Union Environment minister assuring only 0.19% of the total area would be open for mining,  which also finds its reflection in the Supreme Court judgement where the court has directed the MoEF&CC to prepare a Management Plan for Sustainable Mining (MPSM) through Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education (ICFRE) for the entire Aravalis, on the lines of the MPSM for Saranda, and that new licenses for mining lease would be given only after a detailed study has not assured the activists, as they cites that opening even a small portion of Aravallis to mining can seriously harm the fragile Aravallis. There is also a fear of further expansion in future due to poor enforcement or policy relaxation.  Investigative reports have shown that corporate encroachment in the Aravalli region is not accidental but systematic. For instance, the use of multiple shell companies and complex financial structures by multinational companies to quietly acquire forest and hillside land, which is later converted into high-value real estate. For example, in areas such as Mangar village, Patanjali acquired 123 acres of land through several interconnected entities. These layered transactions take advantage of gaps and ambiguities in existing regulations.

The situation has been further aggravated by the 2023 amendment to the Forest Conservation Act, which removed legal protection from large portions of Aravalli land that were not formally notified as forests. This change has opened legal loopholes that corporate actors have been quick to exploit.

Hydrogeologist Dr. Vidhu Shekhar explains, aquifers beneath the Aravallis are all interconnected—break the hills in one place, and water tables drop everywhere, simply meaning that mining in one location has cascading effects across the entire region, threatening water security for millions who depend on these underground reserves.

Seeing nationwide protests especially in the states of Haryana and Rajasthan followed by lawyers demanding the Supreme Court decision to be reversed and Hashtags like #SaveAravalli and #SaveAravallisSaveAQI has been flooding all over social media,etc. which was further intensified in Haryana with a one-day symbolic fast (upvaas) on and as a result, Supreme Court kept in abeyance its order defining Aravalli hills and ranges based on the committee’s definition and ordered to a new high-powered expert committee to re-examine the definition and ecological impact, halting mining until the new assessment is done.

The issue revolving around a new definition of Aravalli no longer remains just an administrative concern, but raises a border constitutional concern as to whether such policy decisions are judicially amenable to judicial scrutiny? Do citizens possess any enforceable rights against the state and actions or policies? To answer all these questions, it becomes necessary to refer to India’s environmental constitutionalism that comprises constitutional provisions and judicially evolved doctrines that allow courts to review state actions and protect ecological interests.

THE JUDICIARY AND THE RIGHT TO ENVIRONMENT IN INDIA

There is no explicit reference to the right to environment in neither the constitution of India nor in any other domestic law. However this right has been widely established through judicial interventions and scrutiny. 

Here Indian courts have been deriving the right to environment from an already existing Fundamental right to life under Article 21. For instance, in Chhetriya Pardushan Mukti Sangharsh Samiti v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors (1990), a case dealing with the environmental concerns arising out of an industrial act wherein the court cited that “any law or conduct that violates the quality of life and living by the people as guaranteed in Article 21, is entitled to take recourse of Article 32 of the Indian Constitution”.

 In Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1985), Supreme Court sought to protect and safeguard ‘the right of the people to live in a healthy environment with minimal disturbance of ecological balance and without avoidable hazard to them and to their cattle, homes and agricultural land and undue affectation of air, water and environment’. 

And finally in some cases, the Supreme Court has explicitly recognised the right to environment as a guaranteed fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has identified ‘pollution-free water and air’ as essential for the enjoyment of the fundamental right to life in the landmark case of Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar. Subsequently, the Court has traced environmental aspects (which concern ‘life’) to Article 21 of the Constitution. In M. C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath and Ors, the Court held: ‘Any disturbance of the basic environmental elements, namely, air, water and soil, which are necessary for “life”, would be hazardous to “life” within the meaning of Article 21 of the Constitution.

A major constitutional development happened in the landmark ruling case of M.K. Ranjitsinh vs Union Of India wherein for the first time, the Court recognized that the “right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change” is integral to the fundamental rights enshrined under Articles 21 and 14 of the Indian Constitution, which provides for the right to equality and life.

The Supreme Court has also referred to duties in respect of environment with reference to 48A of the Indian Constitution. Article 48A mandates that the state shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and safeguard the forest and wildlife of the country. The combined reading of Article 21 and Article 48A of the Constitution has allowed the Court to interpret the right to environment, as imposing both positive and negative duties on the State, to protect, respect and fulfil the right to environment.

Article 51A(g) of the Indian Constitution also imposes a fundamental duty for every citizen to protect and improve the natural environment, including forests, lakes, rivers, and wildlife, and to have compassion for living creatures.

During the adjudication of numerous similar cases, the courts have also evolved certain doctrines which constitute the foundational principles while reviewing any matter arising out of environmental or climate-related harm.

JUDICIALLY EVOLVED DOCTRINES OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTITUTIONALISM

First is the doctrine of sustainable development, referring to which the court in the Vellore citizen’s welfare forum v. Union of India case laid down that development should not be at the cost of environmental degradation with economic growth and ecological integrity to be balanced. In fact, these norms were born of and made sense of in the light of provisions contained in the Constitution—Article 21 (right to life) which now includes a right to a healthy and clean environment, Article 48A (directive to preserve the environment) and Article 51A (fundamental duty of citizens to protect the nature). 

Followed by another doctrine of Polluter Pay Principle-  rule in international environmental law where the polluting party pays for the harm or damage done to the natural environment as discussed by the court in Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action and Ors. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (Bichhri Case).

Another one is the doctrine of Precautionary Principle that mandates taking preventive action against potential serious environmental harm, even without full scientific certainty, shifting the burden of proof onto developers to show their activity is not harmful in effect. It's a preventive approach adopted from the Rio Declaration (Principle 15) and integrated by the Supreme Court (e.g., Vellore Citizens' Forum case) to avoid irreversible damage, emphasizing "better safe than sorry" by anticipating threats and requiring cost-effective measures to prevent degradation. 

Moving further, there comes Public Trust Doctrine referring to which the court has clearly said that “the State is the trustee of all natural resources which are by nature meant for public use and enjoyment. The public at large is the beneficiary of the sea-shore, running waters, airs, forests and ecologically fragile lands. The State as a trustee is under a legal duty to protect the natural resources. These resources meant for public use cannot be converted into private ownership”, introduced by the court for the first time in Kamal Nath judgement.

CONCLUSION

The Aravalli controversy lies at the intersection of ecology, law and governance, exemplifying that environmental constitutionalism – the idea that ecological protection is embedded in constitutional norms – is not a theoretical principle but a real world requirement. A recent statement by a bench of the Supreme Court affirmed the established link between fundamental right to life under Article 21 and  right to clean environment: “Without a clean environment… right to life is not fully realised”.

Similarly, India’s commitments under Article 48A/51A demand that governments enact laws and policies safeguarding regions like the Aravallis from climate-driven harm. Protecting the Aravallis requires integrating these doctrines into concrete measures. Judicial oversight being crucial must be complemented by stronger statutory action. Most importantly, the governments must act as guardians of the Aravallis’ soils, water and forests, and not as profiteers. 

In sum, the Aravalli dispute highlights that India’s climate future very much depends on how it interprets its constitutional and legal commitments today. If courts can expand the meaning of life and equality to include ecological integrity, then progressively they can also compel the State to hold accountability for climate and environmental harms. As environmental constitutionalism advances, doctrines like public trust and sustainable development hold more relevance today.