In contempt of its own order

The Aravalli Range, one of the oldest fold mountain ranges in the world, stretching approximately 692 km across Gujarat, Rajasthan, Haryana, and Delhi, is not merely a geographical feature; it is the ecological lifeline of North-West India. This ancient range acts as a critical green lung, a barrier against desertification from the Thar Desert, a crucial groundwater recharge zone, and a biodiversity hotspot. Its strategic location makes it indispensable for moderating the climate of the Delhi-NCR region, filtering pollutants, and supporting diverse flora and fauna. Historically, the Aravallis have faced immense pressure from urbanization, encroachment, and, most significantly, rampant illegal mining.

The current controversy stems from a proposed redefinition of the Aravalli range, reportedly using a criterion that classifies only areas with a '100-plus metre' elevation from the surrounding plains as part of the range. This seemingly innocuous technicality carries profound implications. If adopted, vast stretches of the Aravallis, particularly the lower slopes, gentler gradients, and interspersed forest patches that do not meet this arbitrary height threshold, would effectively be delisted from the protected 'Aravalli' category. The immediate and dire consequence of such a redefinition would be to open up these now-unprotected forest lands for commercial activities, primarily mining, which has been a persistent threat to the region's ecological integrity.

This proposed redefinition is widely seen as an attempt to circumvent existing environmental safeguards and, as the article suggests, could be interpreted as being "in contempt of its own order." This phrase likely refers to a series of robust judgments by the Supreme Court of India and the National Green Tribunal (NGT) over the past two decades. Notably, the Supreme Court, in its landmark 2004 judgment in the M.C. Mehta v. Union of India case, imposed a ban on mining in the Aravalli hills of Haryana, emphasizing their ecological fragility. Subsequent rulings have reinforced the need for comprehensive protection, recognizing the entire range, not just specific peaks, as ecologically sensitive. Any move to shrink the legally defined Aravalli area would directly undermine these judicial pronouncements and established conservation efforts.

Key stakeholders in this environmental drama include the **State Governments** (especially Haryana and Rajasthan, where mining interests are significant) which often balance revenue generation with environmental responsibilities. The **Central Government** also plays a crucial role through its Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC), which sets national environmental policies. **Environmental Activists and NGOs** like the Aravalli Bachao Andolan are at the forefront, advocating for the range's protection, often through public interest litigations. The **Judiciary** (Supreme Court and NGT) acts as a vigilant guardian, having consistently intervened to protect the Aravallis. Lastly, the **Mining Lobby** and associated industries exert significant pressure for access to mineral resources, often at the expense of ecological balance.

For India, this issue holds immense significance. Ecologically, weakening Aravalli protection would accelerate desertification, exacerbate water scarcity in an already parched region, increase air pollution in the Delhi-NCR, and lead to irreversible biodiversity loss. Socially, it impacts local communities dependent on the range for resources and livelihoods. Economically, while mining offers short-term revenue, the long-term costs of environmental degradation, health impacts, and climate change far outweigh these benefits. Politically, it tests the commitment of governance towards sustainable development and adherence to judicial directives. It also sets a dangerous precedent, potentially paving the way for similar redefinitions of other ecologically sensitive zones across the country.

This issue directly relates to several constitutional provisions and acts. **Article 48A** of the Directive Principles of State Policy mandates that "The State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country." Furthermore, **Article 51A(g)**, a Fundamental Duty, enjoins every citizen "to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for living creatures." The **Environment (Protection) Act, 1986**, provides the central government with wide powers to protect and improve the environment, while the **Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980**, regulates the diversion of forest land for non-forest purposes. Any redefinition that reduces the protected area directly challenges the spirit and letter of these foundational legal instruments.

The future implications are stark. If the redefinition proceeds unchallenged, it could unleash a new wave of mining and construction, irreversibly damaging the Aravallis. This would not only be an ecological catastrophe for North India but also a significant setback for environmental jurisprudence, demonstrating a potential disregard for judicial pronouncements. It underscores the ongoing tension between development imperatives and environmental conservation, highlighting the critical need for a science-based, comprehensive approach to defining and protecting ecologically sensitive areas, rather than politically or economically motivated arbitrary thresholds. The battle for the Aravallis is, in essence, a battle for India's environmental future and the integrity of its legal and constitutional commitments to ecological preservation.