Amid Aravalli protests, Centre asks states to impose ‘complete ban on new mining leases’

Imagine a geological marvel, older than the Himalayas, silently guarding the western flank of India for millions of years. This is the Aravalli Range, a crucial ecological backbone stretching across Rajasthan, Haryana, Gujarat, and Delhi. For competitive exam aspirants, understanding the recent directive by the Central government to impose a "complete ban on new mining leases" in this region, driven by ongoing protests, is not just about a news headline; it's a deep dive into environmental governance, federal relations, sustainable development, and the intricate balance between human needs and ecological preservation.

The Aravalli Range, one of the oldest fold mountains in the world, plays an indispensable role in India's ecology. It acts as a natural barrier against the Thar Desert's eastward expansion, recharges groundwater for millions, supports diverse flora and fauna, and influences the monsoon patterns. However, for decades, this ancient range has been under relentless assault from rampant, often illegal, mining activities driven by the demand for minerals like quartzite, granite, and sandstone. This unchecked exploitation has led to severe environmental degradation: deforestation, soil erosion, depletion of groundwater, loss of biodiversity, and increased air pollution. Local communities, whose livelihoods and health are intrinsically linked to the Aravallis, have borne the brunt of this destruction, sparking numerous protests and advocacy efforts.

The recent directive from the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) to state governments, mandating a complete ban on new mining leases, is a significant policy intervention. It signals the Centre's acknowledgement of the severe ecological crisis in the Aravallis and the persistent demands from environmental activists and local communities. While the immediate trigger was the ongoing protests, this move builds upon a history of judicial interventions and policy recommendations aimed at protecting the range. It's crucial to note that this ban specifically targets *new* leases, meaning existing legal mining operations might continue, albeit under increased scrutiny.

Several key stakeholders are involved. The **Central Government (MoEFCC)**, as the primary environmental policymaker, issues such directives under its mandate to protect the environment. **State Governments** (Rajasthan, Haryana, Gujarat, Delhi) are pivotal in implementation, as mining falls under the concurrent list, but states have significant control over mineral resources. They balance revenue generation from mining with environmental protection. **Local communities and environmental activists** are the frontline defenders, raising awareness and demanding accountability. Their persistent protests were instrumental in prompting this action. The **mining industry** faces economic implications, requiring them to adapt to stricter regulations or explore alternative regions. Finally, the **judiciary**, particularly the Supreme Court and the National Green Tribunal (NGT), has played a historical role in issuing landmark judgments (e.g., the 2009 Supreme Court ban on mining in certain Aravalli areas in Haryana and subsequent orders) that have often shaped environmental policy in the region.

This policy matters profoundly for India. Environmentally, it's a step towards preserving a critical ecosystem, vital for biodiversity, water security, and combating desertification. Economically, while it might impact the mining sector in the short term, it pushes towards sustainable resource management and could foster green industries. Socially, it addresses concerns of environmental justice for affected communities. Politically, it highlights the dynamics of **federalism** in environmental governance, where the Centre can issue directives to states on matters of national environmental significance. This aligns with India's commitments to **Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)**, particularly SDG 15 (Life on Land).

From a constitutional perspective, the directive finds its basis in various provisions. **Article 48A** of the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) mandates the State to 'endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country.' **Article 51A(g)** lists it as a Fundamental Duty of every citizen 'to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife, and to have compassion for living creatures.' The **Environment (Protection) Act, 1986**, provides the legal framework for the Central government to take measures for environmental protection. The **Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act)**, governs mining activities, while the **Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980**, regulates the diversion of forest land for non-forest purposes. The Seventh Schedule of the Constitution places 'mines and mineral development' under both Union List (Entry 54) and State List (Entry 23), indicating shared responsibility, with 'forests' and 'protection of wild animals and birds' under the Concurrent List (Entries 17A and 17B), allowing both Centre and states to legislate.

Looking ahead, the future implications are significant. The effectiveness of this ban will depend heavily on robust enforcement by state governments and continuous monitoring by central agencies and the judiciary. It could lead to a push for reclamation and restoration of degraded Aravalli areas. It might also encourage the mining industry to adopt more sustainable practices and explore new technologies. However, challenges remain, including potential illegal mining, difficulties in monitoring vast areas, and balancing development pressures with conservation needs. This directive sets a precedent for stronger central intervention in ecologically sensitive zones, potentially influencing environmental policy in other regions facing similar exploitation.

In conclusion, the ban on new mining leases in the Aravallis is more than just an environmental decision; it's a testament to the power of public activism, a critical test of India's federal environmental governance, and a crucial step towards safeguarding one of its most vital natural assets for future generations.