Supreme Court special bench to hear suo motu case on ‘definition’ of Aravalli

The Supreme Court's decision to constitute a three-judge Special Vacation Bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, to hear a suo motu case concerning the 'definition' of the Aravalli mountain range is a landmark development with profound implications for environmental governance and sustainable development in India. This judicial intervention underscores the critical ecological significance of the Aravallis and the persistent challenges in their protection.

The **background context** for this suo motu action lies in the continuous degradation of the Aravalli range, which stretches approximately 692 km across Gujarat, Rajasthan, Haryana, and Delhi. Despite its vital role as a green lung for the National Capital Region (NCR), a water recharge zone, and a barrier against the eastward march of the Thar Desert, the Aravallis have been subjected to rampant illegal mining, encroachment, deforestation, and unbridled urbanization for decades. A key impediment to effective protection has been the lack of a clear, legally recognized definition of what constitutes the Aravalli range. Different government departments, state authorities, and even court orders have, at times, used varying criteria, leading to ambiguities that exploiters have often leveraged to bypass environmental regulations. Previous attempts to delineate the range, such as through satellite mapping or historical records, have faced implementation challenges, leaving vast tracts vulnerable.

**What happened** is that the Supreme Court, acting *suo motu* (on its own motion), decided to take up this critical issue. A suo motu case signifies the judiciary's proactive role in safeguarding public interest, especially when other branches of government might be perceived as failing in their duty. The constitution of a Special Vacation Bench, especially one headed by the Chief Justice of India, highlights the urgency and gravity the apex court attaches to this matter. The core issue to be addressed is the establishment of a definitive, legally binding 'definition' of the Aravalli mountain range, which would then form the basis for all future protection and conservation efforts.

**Key stakeholders** involved in this complex issue include: the **Supreme Court of India**, acting as the ultimate guardian of the Constitution and environmental rights; the **Central Government**, particularly the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC), responsible for national environmental policy and oversight; the **State Governments** of Rajasthan, Haryana, Delhi, and Gujarat, whose land use policies, enforcement mechanisms, and revenue generation from mining are directly impacted; **local communities and tribal populations** living within and around the Aravallis, whose livelihoods and cultural practices are intertwined with the health of the ecosystem; **environmental activists and NGOs** who have tirelessly campaigned for the Aravallis' protection; and **real estate developers, mining companies, and industrial lobbies**, who often seek to utilize the land for commercial purposes, sometimes at the expense of ecological balance.

**Why this matters for India** is multi-faceted. Ecologically, the Aravallis are indispensable. They act as a critical groundwater recharge zone, mitigating water scarcity in a drought-prone region. They host unique biodiversity, including several endemic species, and play a crucial role in regulating air quality for the highly polluted NCR. From an **environmental governance** perspective, a clear definition will eliminate ambiguity, making it easier to enforce environmental laws like the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. It will streamline the process of identifying and prosecuting illegal activities, thereby strengthening the rule of law in environmental matters. This case also reinforces the principle of **sustainable development**, seeking to balance economic growth with ecological preservation, a core tenet of India's national policy.

**Historically**, the Aravallis have been the subject of numerous legal battles and policy interventions. Landmark judgments, such as the M.C. Mehta v. Union of India case (often linked to the Godavarman Thirumulpad case concerning forests), have emphasized the need for comprehensive protection. Various committees and reports, including those by the Environment Pollution (Prevention & Control) Authority (EPCA), have repeatedly highlighted the threats and the need for a clear definition and protection mechanism. Yet, the fragmentation of jurisdiction and lack of political will often stalled effective action.

**Future implications** of the Supreme Court's ruling could be transformative. A definitive legal definition would provide a clear boundary for conservation, enabling stricter regulation of mining, construction, and other developmental activities. It could lead to the establishment of dedicated Aravalli protection authorities or specific legislative frameworks. This could significantly improve the ecological health of the region, enhance water security, and protect biodiversity. Furthermore, it would set a powerful precedent for judicial activism in environmental matters, encouraging similar interventions for other ecologically sensitive areas across India. The decision could also prompt better inter-state coordination and compel state governments to align their development plans with ecological imperatives.

From a **constitutional perspective**, this case touches upon several fundamental principles. **Article 21** (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) has been broadly interpreted by the Supreme Court to include the right to a clean and healthy environment. **Article 48A** (Protection and Improvement of Environment and Safeguarding of Forests and Wildlife) is a Directive Principle of State Policy, urging the state to protect and improve the environment. **Article 51A(g)** imposes a Fundamental Duty on every citizen to protect and improve the natural environment. The Supreme Court's *suo motu* power is rooted in its role as a guardian of fundamental rights and its power of **judicial review** (Articles 32 and 226), allowing it to intervene when constitutional mandates are not being met by the executive or legislature. The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, provide the statutory framework for environmental protection, which the Court's judgment will strengthen by providing clarity on the scope of their application to the Aravallis.