Two weeks before Supreme Court accepted 100-m Aravalli norm, its panel cautioned on mining leases

The Supreme Court's decision to accept a '100-m Aravalli norm' following a panel's caution on mining leases underscores a critical intersection of environmental protection, resource management, and judicial oversight in India. While specific details of the judgment are not available, the headline itself points to a significant development concerning the Aravalli Range, an ancient geological formation vital for the ecological health of North India.

The Aravalli Range, stretching approximately 692 km across Gujarat, Rajasthan, Haryana, and Delhi, is one of the oldest fold mountain systems in the world. It acts as a crucial green lung for the National Capital Region (NCR), a natural barrier against desertification from the Thar Desert, and a significant groundwater recharge zone. Its unique biodiversity, including several endemic species, makes it an ecological treasure. However, for decades, the Aravallis have faced relentless degradation due to rampant illegal mining, deforestation, uncontrolled urbanization, and real estate development. This exploitation has led to severe environmental consequences, including depletion of groundwater, loss of biodiversity, increased air pollution, and disruption of natural drainage systems.

Historically, the conflict between economic development and environmental preservation in the Aravallis has been a contentious issue. The lure of mineral wealth (marble, granite, quartzite, sand, bajri) has often overshadowed ecological concerns, leading to an extensive history of illegal and unsustainable mining practices. Environmental activists and concerned citizens have repeatedly approached various courts, including the Supreme Court, to halt the destruction. Landmark judgments, such as those arising from the M.C. Mehta cases in the 1990s and early 2000s, have highlighted the judiciary's proactive role in environmental governance, often stepping in where executive action has been insufficient or slow.

The '100-m Aravalli norm' likely refers to the establishment of a buffer zone or a no-go area for mining and construction activities within 100 meters of the forest boundary, water bodies, or specific ecologically sensitive areas within the Aravalli range. Such norms are vital to protect the integrity of the ecosystem, prevent further encroachment, and allow for natural regeneration. The mention of a 'panel' cautioning on mining leases suggests that an expert committee, possibly the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) appointed by the Supreme Court, or a state-level expert body, conducted a detailed study. Such panels provide scientific and ground-level assessments, informing the judiciary about the environmental impact of ongoing activities and the efficacy of existing regulations.

Key stakeholders in this issue include the Supreme Court, acting as the guardian of constitutional rights and environmental laws; the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC), responsible for policy formulation and environmental clearances; the State Governments of Haryana, Rajasthan, Gujarat, and Delhi, which are primarily responsible for land use, granting mining leases, and enforcing environmental regulations; the mining companies and real estate developers, whose economic interests often clash with conservation efforts; and environmental activists and local communities, who bear the brunt of environmental degradation and often serve as petitioners in legal battles.

This development matters profoundly for India. Firstly, it reaffirms the judiciary's commitment to environmental protection, particularly under Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the Right to Life, implicitly including the right to a clean and healthy environment. It also reinforces the Directive Principles of State Policy, specifically Article 48A, which mandates the State to protect and improve the environment and safeguard forests and wildlife, and Fundamental Duty Article 51A(g), which enjoins citizens to protect and improve the natural environment. Secondly, it sends a strong message regarding the need for sustainable development, balancing economic growth with ecological preservation. The Aravallis are critical for the NCR's water security, air quality, and climate resilience, making their protection a matter of public health and national importance. Thirdly, it highlights the ongoing challenges in governance, particularly the enforcement of environmental laws like the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, and the implementation of policies such as the Aravalli Notification, 1992. The Supreme Court's intervention often becomes necessary due to gaps in enforcement by executive agencies.

Looking ahead, the acceptance of such a norm implies stricter monitoring and enforcement. It could lead to a review of existing mining leases, potential cancellation of those violating the new norm, and a more cautious approach to granting future clearances. This could significantly impact the mining industry and real estate development in the region, potentially leading to legal challenges from affected parties. However, it also paves the way for a more robust Aravalli conservation plan, promoting eco-tourism, afforestation, and sustainable livelihoods for local communities. The decision could also set a precedent for protecting other ecologically sensitive zones across India, strengthening the country's environmental jurisprudence and its commitment to a greener future.