Supreme Court Orders Management Plan and Halts New Mining Leases in Aravali Until Scientific MPSM Is Finalised

A bench of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justices K. Vinod Chandran and N.V. Anjaria heard pleas arising out of long‑running public interest litigation concerning the definition, conservation and regulation of mining in the Aravali Hills and Ranges across Delhi, Haryana, Rajasthan and Gujarat. The Court was seized of whether a uniform definition of “Aravali Hills/Ranges” should be adopted and what restrictions or permissions should govern mining activities in the landscape.

The Court accepted the Committee and Central Empowered Committee (CEC) recommendations on definition, core/inviolate zones and safeguards for sustainable mining, and issued binding directions to the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC). It directed MoEF&CC to commission a Management Plan for Sustainable Mining (MPSM) through the Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education (ICFRE) for the entire Aravalis, and imposed an interim bar on grant of new mining leases in the Aravalis until the MPSM was finalised. The Court emphasised ecological protection and continuity of the range while permitting existing lawful mining to continue subject to strict compliance. The Court, in its reasoning, observed:

Background The dispute arose in proceedings linked to T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad (WP(C) No.202/1995) and connected M.C. Mehta matters, where varied state definitions and mapping of Aravali features had led to conflicting approaches to mining regulation and allegations of large‑scale illegal extraction. The Court recorded scientific assessments that the Aravali ecosystem acted as a “green barrier” and an effective “shield” against desertification, and noted submissions that the range suffered from “escalating degradation pressures” including deforestation, excessive mining and urban encroachment. The CEC (CEC Report No.3/2024) and a Committee constituted by the MoEF&CC submitted mapping and operational definitions; the Committee recommended a 100m foothill buffer, criteria for hills and ranges, prohibition of mining in designated core/inviolate zones (protected areas, tiger corridors, wetlands, aquifer recharge zones, CAMPA‑funded plantations, NCR and dark groundwater zones), and regulatory measures including ILMS, crusher siting limits and strengthened enforcement. The Court accepted the Committee’s definition and core/inviolate prohibition subject to limited exceptions for critical, strategic and atomic minerals, but considered that a district‑wise, geo‑referenced Management Plan for Sustainable Mining (modelled on the Saranda MPSM by ICFRE) was necessary to identify areas where sustainable mining could be permitted and to prescribe restoration, cumulative‑impact analysis and carrying‑capacity limits. The Court therefore directed MoEF&CC to prepare the MPSM through ICFRE, stayed issuance of new mining leases in the Aravalis until that plan was finalised, and allowed existing lawful mining to continue only in strict compliance with the Committee’s recommendations.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 1338; I.A. No.105701 of 2024 (CEC Report No.03 of 2024) in Writ Petition (C) No.202 of 1995 Case Title: IN RE: ISSUE RELATING TO DEFINITION OF ARAVALI HILLS AND RANGES — In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Others Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. K. Parameshwar (Amicus Curiae assisting the Court); Mr. M.V. Mukunda, Ms. Kanti, Ms. Raji Gururaj, Mr. Shreenivas Patil (assisting) For the Respondent(s): Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Additional Solicitor General of India (for MoEF&CC); Mr. Balbir Singh, Sr. Counsel (for State of Haryana); Mr. K.M. Natraj, Additional Solicitor General of India (for State of Rajasthan); (other appearances noted in record included Solicitor General and State representatives)